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:
- All incoming articles will be reviewed by at least one respondent / peer reviewer
- Reviewers have the right to provide notes in the form of minor revisions, major revisions, and even reject articles
- The publication decision is in the hands of the Editor in Chief based on the results of the article review
- 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:
- Article writing format in accordance with the provisions / writing guidelines of the Journal of Dedicators Community
- The article sent is the result of community service.
- 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
- The Method using in the manuscript is update
- Actual
- 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
- 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.
- 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).
- Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
- 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)?
- 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