Review Guidelines

 
The article submitted to Journal of Dedicators Community will be reviewed by blind peer review process: 
 

Journal of Dedicators Community sets the following review standards on blind peer review:

  1. All incoming articles will be reviewed by at least one respondent / peer reviewer 
  2. Reviewers have the right to provide notes in the form of minor revisions, major revisions, and even reject articles
  3. The publication decision is in the hands of the Editor in Chief based on the results of the article review
  4. The editorial board provides input to the Editor in Chief if necessary during the decision making process

Criteria The article submitted to the Journal of Community Dedicators is as follows:

  1. Article writing format in accordance with the provisions / writing guidelines of the Journal of Dedicators Community
  2. The article sent is the result of community service.
  3. Having the sharpness of the formulation of the problem, the purpose of service, and the results of dedication that provide benefits for empowerment and improvement of values in the community
  4. The Method using in the manuscript is update
  5. Actual
  6. Have a positive impact to do continuously in the community.
Full Review Process of Manuscript
  • Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, that is, has a logical progression and evident organization?
  • Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced,
  • Eliminated/expanded/added? Note if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are just a few places that aren’t worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific places. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two if need be- don’t try and edit the whole thing).
  • Abbreviations: Used judiciously and are composed such that reader won’t have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
  • Follows style, format and other rules of the journal.
  • Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.

Reviewer should use the following stage to review

  1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is good reason. 
  2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
  3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
  4. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequate or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or were results so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
  5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: 
  • Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; 
  • Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; 
  • A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

Categories Decision

  • Publish : No Need Revision
  • Minor : Revision can be done by Editor-In-Chief or those who help
  • Major : Revision can only be done by author
  • Rejected : Unproperly scientific or too many