Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Pelita Raya (JPR) undergo a double blind peer-review process. Reviewers are responsible for providing an objective, constructive, and critical evaluation of each manuscript, and for advising the Editorial Team on its suitability for publication in Jurnal Pelita Raya (JPR).

These guidelines are intended to support reviewers in conducting a thorough, consistent, and academically rigorous assessment.

Preliminary Considerations Before Accepting a Review

Alignment with the Reviewer’s Expertise

Reviewers should first determine whether the manuscript falls within their area of academic and methodological expertise. If the topic, theoretical framework, or methodological approach lies outside the reviewer’s competence, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Secretary and either decline the invitation or, where appropriate, clearly state the limits of their expertise in their review.

Availability and Timeliness

The review is expected to be completed within two weeks of the manuscript being sent to the reviewer. If the reviewer is unable to meet this timeframe or anticipates any delay, the Editorial Secretary should be notified as early as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made or the deadline adjusted.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must carefully consider whether any potential conflicts of interest exist in relation to the manuscript, its authors, or its funding sources. Any real or perceived conflict of interest should be communicated immediately to the Editorial Secretary. Where a conflict of interest is significant, the reviewer should decline to review the manuscript.

Suspected Plagiarism or Research Misconduct

If the reviewer suspects plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, unethical research practices, or any other form of academic misconduct, this concern should be reported promptly and confidentially to the Editorial Secretary. Whenever possible, the reviewer should provide specific information or examples that support their concern.

Evaluation of the Manuscript

Compliance with the Journal’s Author Guidelines

Reviewers should examine whether the manuscript adheres to the journal’s submission and writing guidelines. This includes:

  • Overall structure and organisation of the manuscript
  • Conformity to length and formatting requirements
  • Accuracy and consistency of citation and referencing style
  • Appropriateness and quality of academic language

Any major deviations from the journal’s requirements should be clearly noted in the review.

Assessment of Content

In evaluating the substantive content of the manuscript, reviewers are invited to reflect on:

  • Whether the topic has been widely addressed in the existing literature and, if so, whether the manuscript offers sufficient added value, depth, or a fresh perspective to warrant publication
  • Whether the manuscript demonstrates elements of originality, conceptual or empirical novelty, and intellectually stimulating arguments
  • Whether the work contributes meaningfully to the development of scientific understanding and knowledge in its field
  • Whether the main theories, concepts, and references employed are appropriate, relevant, and coherent with the study’s objectives and research design

Title

The title should clearly and accurately represent the content, scope, and focus of the manuscript. Reviewers should consider whether the title is concise, informative, and aligned with the central issues and findings of the study.

Abstract

The abstract should succinctly reflect the key elements of the manuscript, including:

  • Background and context
  • Aims or objectives of the study
  • Methods or approaches employed
  • Main findings
  • Principal conclusions

Reviewers should assess whether the abstract provides an accurate, coherent, and self-contained summary of the work.

Introduction

The introduction should effectively situate the research within its broader academic context. In particular, it should:

  • Present the general background and context of the research
  • Clearly articulate the research problem, research questions, or hypotheses
  • Integrate a relevant, critical, and up-to-date review of the literature that supports the rationale for the study

Reviewers should consider whether the introduction convincingly establishes the significance of the research and demonstrates how it engages with and extends the existing body of knowledge.

Method

The methodological section should be presented with clarity and precision. Reviewers should consider:

  • Whether the author has clearly and accurately explained how data were collected, including research design, instruments, sampling procedures, and data collection processes
  • Whether the methods are appropriate and sufficient to address the stated research questions or test the hypotheses
  • Whether any new, innovative, or less common methods are employed, and, if so, whether they are described in enough detail to allow replication, scrutiny, or critical evaluation

Results and Discussion

The results should be presented in a clear, logical, and coherent sequence that facilitates understanding of the findings. Reviewers should examine whether:

  • The analyses conducted are appropriate, correctly applied, and clearly reported
  • The findings are interpreted accurately and consistently with the data
  • The discussion section meaningfully relates the results to the research questions, prior literature, and theoretical framework
  • The discussion avoids overgeneralisation, unsupported claims, or conclusions that go beyond what the data warrant

Conclusion

The conclusion should provide clear, well-reasoned answers to the research questions or objectives and highlight the key findings of the study. Reviewers should consider whether:

  • The conclusion is logically derived from the results and discussion
  • The section avoids unnecessary repetition of material already presented in previous sections
  • The recommendations offered are relevant, feasible, and clearly connected to the study’s findings and conceptual framework
  • Any suggestions for future research are well-motivated and appropriately grounded in the study’s limitations and implications

Tables and Figures

Tables and figures should support, clarify, and complement the text rather than merely duplicate it. Reviewers should verify that:

  • All tables and figures are relevant to the content and enhance understanding of the findings
  • The presentation is clear, consistent, and professionally formatted
  • Each table and figure includes an informative title, an explanatory legend where necessary, and a clear source of reference (for example, books, journal articles, websites, or other credible sources)

References

Reviewers should carefully examine the accuracy, relevance, and recency of the references. In particular, they should check that:

  • All references cited in the text appear in the reference list, and all entries in the reference list are cited in the text
  • The reference style conforms to the American Psychological Association (APA) 7th edition guidelines
  • The majority of references (approximately 80%) consist of recent journal articles published within the last ten years, with the remaining 20% drawn from books, theses, or other relevant scholarly sources

Writing Style and Language

The manuscript should be written in clear, grammatically correct, and academically appropriate English, using a style that is formal yet readable and coherent. Reviewers should note any issues relating to:

  • Clarity and precision of expression
  • Logical flow and coherence of the argument
  • Structure of paragraphs and sections
  • Consistency of academic tone

Where necessary, reviewers should indicate if substantial language editing is required to bring the manuscript up to an acceptable standard.

Final Recommendation and Completion of the Review

Completion of the Review Form

The reviewer’s assessment should be recorded in the Review Form provided by the Editorial Secretary. All fields and sections identified as mandatory (for example, those indicated with asterisks) must be completed carefully, accurately, and comprehensively.

Recommendation Categories

At the conclusion of the evaluation, reviewers are asked to select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form or requires only minimal editorial corrections.
  • Accept with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is acceptable for publication, subject to minor revisions that respond to specific issues raised by the reviewer, such as clarifications, minor restructuring, or the inclusion of a limited number of additional references.
  • Accept with Major Revisions: Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication. These may involve improved data analysis, stronger theoretical framing, clearer methodological description, or significant rewriting of key sections. A revised version should be submitted for re-evaluation.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in Jurnal Pelita Raya (JPR), either because of fundamental conceptual, methodological, or ethical problems, or because the issues identified are too substantial to be resolved through revision.

Reviewer Identification

Once the review form and final recommendation have been completed, reviewers should provide their personal and professional details in the relevant fields (for example, name, institutional affiliation, and contact information), in accordance with the journal’s procedures and confidentiality policies.