Reviewer Giudelines

Authors and Reviewers

Reviewer Guidelines

Jurnal Pakar Manajemen (JPM) · e-ISSN 3064-0199 · Review criteria synchronized with the official article template

Editorial advice, not delegated decision-makingJPM uses double-anonymized peer review. Reviewers provide independent, confidential, constructive, and evidence-based advice; the handling editor evaluates the reports and makes the editorial decision.

Before Accepting an Invitation

  • Accept only when the subject and method are within your competence and you can submit a careful report by the requested deadline.
  • Declare financial, personal, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, or other conflicts. Decline when impartiality may reasonably be questioned.
  • Notify the editor if the manuscript or authors can be identified and that knowledge creates a conflict or compromises double-anonymized review.
  • Treat the invitation, manuscript, files, identities, correspondence, and review as confidential. Do not contact the authors.

Template-Aligned Assessment

Scope and contribution Does the work fit JPM's management scope, identify a meaningful gap or problem, and make a clear scholarly or practical contribution?
Titles, abstracts, keywords Are both language titles informative and no more than 18 words? Are both abstracts one paragraph of 200–250 words with problem/background, objective, method, principal findings, and conclusion/contribution, followed by 3–5 keywords?
Introduction and theory Are the problem, gap, objective, contribution, literature, framework, and any hypotheses or propositions coherent and sufficiently justified?
Method Are design, setting, sample/data, instruments, procedure, validity or trustworthiness, ethics, and analysis transparent and appropriate for the stated article type?
Results and discussion Are results complete and internally consistent? Are claims supported, alternatives considered, prior studies compared, and limitations and implications stated without duplicating results?
Conclusion Does it answer the objective and distinguish evidence-based conclusions, practical or theoretical implications, recommendations, and future research?
Presentation and references Are tables, figures, equations, citations, and references accurate, necessary, readable, cross-matched, and consistent with APA 7?
Declarations and integrity Are contributions, funding, conflicts, ethics/consent or exemption, data availability, and AI use stated? Report suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, manipulated data/images, duplicate publication, or other concerns privately to the editor.
Ethics boundaryA reviewer assesses whether the authors have reported adequate ethics approval, exemption, consent, and protections. A reviewer or editor must not issue ethics approval or declare a study exempt in place of an authorized institution, committee, or applicable rule.

Writing the Review

  • Begin with a concise summary of the study and its contribution, then state the overall assessment.
  • Separate numbered major and minor comments. Identify the relevant page, paragraph, table, figure, or section; explain why the issue matters; and suggest a feasible improvement.
  • Be specific, respectful, and focused on the work. Avoid personal criticism, hostile language, editing demands unrelated to validity, and requests for irrelevant self-citation.
  • Place confidential integrity or conflict concerns in comments to the editor, not as unsupported allegations to the authors.

Recommendations

  • Accept: publishable without substantive change.
  • Minor revision: sound work requiring limited clarification or correction.
  • Major revision: potentially publishable work requiring substantial but feasible changes and normally another review round.
  • Decline: fundamental scope, originality, methodological, ethical, or evidentiary problems that cannot reasonably be corrected in revision.

Confidentiality and Artificial Intelligence

Do not share the manuscript, use unpublished ideas, or upload manuscript text, figures, data, supplementary files, or review content to a public generative-AI service. An approved tool may be used only under documented publisher safeguards. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the entire report and must follow the Generative AI Policy and Editorial and Peer Review Policy.

Page owner: Editorial Board, Jurnal Pakar Manajemen (JPM) · Last reviewed: August 2026.