Peer Revierwers

Peer Review Guidelines for the Journal of economics circular and local cultural development (JECLCD)

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a peer reviewer for the Journal of Circular Economics and Local Cultural Development (JCECD). Your contribution is invaluable in maintaining the quality and academic integrity of our publications. Please use the guidelines below to evaluate the manuscript assigned to you.

General Principles of Peer Review

  • Confidentiality: The manuscript you are reviewing is a confidential document. Do not share or discuss its contents with anyone else without the editor's permission.
  • Objectivity: Conduct your review objectively, provide constructive criticism, and avoid personal comments. Focus on the scientific and methodological quality of the manuscript.
  • Timeliness: Please strive to complete your review within the specified timeframe to ensure an efficient publication process. If you require an extension, please inform the editor immediately.
  • Conflict of Interest: If you have any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal or professional relationships with the authors, or involvement in similar research), please disclose them to the editor immediately and decline the review assignment if necessary.

Aspects to Evaluate

When conducting your review, please consider the following aspects:

  1. Relevance and Originality
  • Topic Relevance: Is the manuscript's topic relevant to JCECD's focus and scope (Circular Economics and Local Cultural Development)?
  • Originality: Does the manuscript present significant new findings, ideas, or approaches? Does it make an original contribution to the existing literature?
  • Significance: What is the potential impact of this research on understanding or practice in the fields of Circular Economics and Local Cultural Development?
  1. Structure and Language
  • Manuscript Structure: Does the manuscript have a logical and easy-to-follow structure (Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References)?
  • Abstract: Does the abstract accurately reflect the manuscript's content, including its aim, methods, main results, and conclusions?
  • Title and Keywords: Are the title and keywords relevant and descriptive?
  • Writing Quality: Is the language clear, concise, and free of grammatical or spelling errors (in English or Indonesian)?
  1. Literature Review
  • Comprehensiveness: Does the literature review cover key and up-to-date literature relevant to the topic?
  • Research Gap: Does the literature review successfully identify a gap in the existing literature that this research addresses?
  • Logical Coherence: Does the literature review build a strong argument and lead to the formulation of the research problem/objectives?
  1. Research Methodology
  • Research Design: Is the research design appropriate for answering the research questions or achieving the stated objectives?
  • Population/Sample: Is the population or sample clearly described and representative?
  • Data Collection: Are the data collection methods (e.g., surveys, interviews, observations) described in sufficient detail and are they valid?
  • Data Analysis: Are the data analysis methods (quantitative or qualitative) clearly described and statistically or conceptually appropriate?
  • Research Ethics: Have any ethical issues (if applicable) been properly addressed?
  1. Results and Discussion
  • Results Presentation: Are the results presented clearly, concisely, and without excessive interpretation? Are tables and figures relevant and easy to understand?
  • Results Analysis: Are the results adequately analyzed? Is there a clear connection between the results and the research questions/objectives?
  • Discussion: Does the discussion interpret the results within the context of the literature review? Are the findings compared with previous research?
  • Implications: Are the theoretical, practical, or policy implications of the findings clearly discussed?
  • Limitations: Are the limitations of the study acknowledged and discussed?
  1. Conclusion and Recommendations
  • Conclusion: Is the conclusion supported by the results and discussion? Does it answer the research objectives?
  • Recommendations: Are the recommendations (if any) relevant and realistic?
  1. References
  • Completeness: Are all references cited in the text present in the reference list?
  • Formatting: Does the reference list follow the journal's specified citation style (e.g., APA Style)?
  • Quality of References: Are the references used credible and relevant?

 

Recommendation to the Editor

After evaluating the manuscript, please provide your recommendation to the editor:

  • Accept: The manuscript can be published as is.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes and can be accepted after satisfactory revisions.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes and will require another round of review.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or has fundamental flaws that cannot be corrected.

Please include detailed and specific comments for the authors, indicating which sections need improvement and how to address them. These comments will be extremely helpful for the authors in revising their manuscript.

Thank you again for your time and expertise. We deeply appreciate your support in enhancing the quality of (JECLCD)