Wasian Journal Reviewer Guidelines

 

Introduction

Thank you for serving as a reviewer for Wasian Journal. Your expertise and contributions are vital to maintaining the high standards of our publication. These guidelines are designed to assist you in conducting a thorough and constructive review that will help authors improve their manuscripts and help editors make informed decisions.

Ethical Considerations

As a reviewer, you agree to:

  • Maintain confidentiality regarding the content of manuscripts under review
  • Declare any conflicts of interest that might influence your assessment
  • Provide objective evaluations free from personal bias
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 2-4 weeks)
  • Treat all authors with respect and provide constructive feedback

Review Process Overview

  1. Initial Assessment: Determine if the manuscript falls within the scope of Wasian Journal and meets basic quality standards
  2. Thorough Evaluation: Assess the manuscript based on the criteria outlined below
  3. Complete Review Form: Provide ratings and detailed comments in the review form
  4. Submit Recommendation: Select your final recommendation for the manuscript

Evaluation Criteria

Your review should address each of the following aspects, which align with our review form:

1. Relevance to Wasian Scope

Evaluate how well the manuscript aligns with the journal's focus on forestry, environmental science, and natural resource management. Consider whether the topic would interest our readership and contributes to our field.

2. Methodology

Assess whether the research methods are appropriate, well-designed, and properly implemented. Consider whether the methods are described with sufficient detail to allow replication. Identify any methodological weaknesses or limitations.

3. Novelty of Research

Evaluate the extent to which the manuscript presents new findings, approaches, or insights. Consider whether it advances current knowledge or merely replicates existing work.

4. Originality and Contribution

Assess the originality of the manuscript and its contribution to the field. Consider whether it presents innovative ideas, novel applications, or significant advancements to theory or practice.

5. Writing Quality and Organization

Evaluate the clarity, coherence, and logical flow of the manuscript. Consider whether it is well-structured, follows academic writing conventions, and effectively communicates its content.

6. Literature Use and Citations

Assess whether the manuscript appropriately engages with relevant literature. Consider whether key references are included, properly cited, and effectively integrated into the discussion.

Providing Constructive Feedback

When completing the review form, please:

Strengths

  • Highlight the positive aspects of the manuscript
  • Acknowledge novel contributions and well-executed elements
  • Recognize when authors have effectively addressed complex issues

Weaknesses

  • Identify specific issues that need to be addressed
  • Prioritize major concerns over minor issues
  • Be specific about methodological, theoretical, or analytical problems

Comments for Authors

  • Be respectful, constructive, and specific
  • Provide clear suggestions for improvement
  • Avoid vague criticisms without actionable insights
  • Address both content and presentation issues

Confidential Comments for Editor

  • Share any concerns about ethical issues, conflicts of interest, or suspected misconduct
  • Provide your candid assessment of the manuscript's suitability for publication
  • Highlight any aspects that may not be appropriate to share directly with authors

Final Recommendation

Based on your evaluation, select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept as is: Manuscript requires no revisions and is ready for publication
  • Accept with minor revisions: Manuscript requires minor adjustments that can be handled by the editor
  • Major revision required: Manuscript has merit but requires substantial changes
  • Reject with encouragement to resubmit: Manuscript has significant issues but contains valuable elements worth developing
  • Reject: Manuscript is not suitable for publication in Wasian Journal

Technical Guidelines

When evaluating forestry and environmental science manuscripts, consider:

  • Appropriate use of statistical methods and data analysis
  • Proper presentation of results through tables, figures, and graphs
  • Accurate interpretation of findings in relation to existing literature
  • Acknowledgment of limitations and potential biases
  • Consideration of implications for policy, practice, or future research
  • Proper documentation of species, locations, and environmental conditions
  • Adherence to ethical standards for field research and data collection

Contact Information

If you have any questions or concerns about the review process, please contact the editorial office at forestry.dep@unismuh.ac.id.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the peer review process of Wasian Journal.