Role and Importance of Reviewers
Reviewers play a critical role in the scholarly evaluation process. Their objective, timely, and constructive assessments ensure the scientific quality of our journals and support the publication of only high-standard research. The integrity and development of Kelajak International Group journals rely heavily on the expertise and efforts of our reviewers.

Becoming a Reviewer
Scholars interested in serving as reviewers for Kelajak International Group journals may submit a request to the Editorial Office. Applications are typically evaluated within five working days.
Note: A Ph.D. degree or equivalent research experience is strongly recommended for reviewer eligibility.

Competing Interests
Reviewers should not accept a review assignment if a potential competing interest exists. Such situations include:

• previous or current collaboration with the author(s);
• direct academic or professional competition;
• personal conflicts or negative relationships with the author(s);
• financial or professional benefits that may arise from the study’s findings.

If you cannot provide an impartial evaluation, you must immediately inform the Editorial Office and decline the assignment.

Confidentiality of Manuscripts
Kelajak International Group journals use a blind peer-review system. Reviewer identities are kept confidential, and reviewers must treat all manuscripts as strictly confidential documents. Manuscripts must not be shared, discussed, or distributed without explicit permission from the journal.

Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation
Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should consider:

• Expertise: Does the subject matter fall within your area of specialization? Only accept if you can conduct a qualified and insightful review.
• Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts when responding.
• Availability: Ensure that you can complete the review within the given deadline. Promptly accepting or declining prevents delays.

If declining, reviewers are encouraged to suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

How to Structure Your Review
Review reports should generally follow a structured four-part format:
1. Summary of your overall judgment regarding suitability for publication
2. Brief outline of the article’s content
3. Major and minor issues, including critical analysis
4. Final conclusion and recommendation

Helpful Tips for Reviewers

• Begin with positive observations — this encourages authors to engage constructively with your feedback.
• Provide a concise summary of the article’s aims, scope, and findings.
• Evaluate the findings in the context of existing literature.
• Comment on the significance, originality, and contribution of the work.
• Highlight strengths and assess the completeness and coherence of the study.
• Clearly note any important scientific weaknesses or concerns.

Major Issues to Consider

• Are there significant methodological or conceptual flaws?
• Have the authors overlooked relevant previously published work?
• Do the findings challenge existing theories? If so, is the evidence sufficient?
• Are major revisions needed? Provide specific, actionable guidance.
• Are figures, tables, and the manuscript structure adequate for proper evaluation?
• Are there any ethical concerns? If unsure, address them in the confidential comments to the editor.

Minor Issues to Consider

• Are there ambiguous statements that need clarification?
• Are the citations appropriate, balanced, and accurate?
• Are there factual, numerical, or unit-related errors?
• Are all figures and tables appropriately labeled, sufficient, and necessary?

Purpose and Impact of Your Review
Your evaluation helps the editor determine whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Constructive, respectful, and well-reasoned comments help authors improve their work and support the integrity of the scientific record. Avoid personal remarks or non-academic criticism.

Recommendation Options
Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Reject — include clear and well-supported justification.
• Accept without revision
• Accept with major or minor revisions — specify the required changes and indicate whether you are willing to review the revised manuscript.

Reviewer recommendations are visible only to the editors, not to the authors.

Rating the Manuscript
Reviewers may be asked to complete a questionnaire or scorecard. Consider the following questions when forming your evaluation:

• What is the main research question, and is it relevant and meaningful?
• How original is the study? What does it contribute compared to existing literature?
• Is the manuscript well written and easy to understand?
• Are the conclusions supported by the presented data and arguments?
• If the study challenges existing knowledge, is the evidence strong enough?
• Do figures and tables add value and clarity?
• Is the English language appropriate, clear, and academically sound?