Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers safeguard the quality of IJES : Indonesian Journal of Environmental Sustainability. These guidelines explain what the journal expects from reviewers in its double-blind review process. Reviews are submitted through the review form in OJS.

Before accepting an invitation

  • Accept only if the manuscript is within your expertise and you can submit the review within three weeks.
  • Decline if you have a conflict of interest: for example, you recognise the authors, work at the same institution, have collaborated with them recently, or have a competing financial or academic interest (see Conflict of Interest).
  • If you need more time, inform the editor through OJS before the deadline.

Confidentiality and AI

  • Treat the manuscript and your review as confidential. Do not share them or contact the authors.
  • Do not use AI tools at any point of the review: not to analyse or assess the manuscript, not to write or polish your comments, and not to upload or paste any part of the manuscript (see AI Policy).

What to assess

AspectQuestions to consider
ScopeDoes the manuscript fit the Focus and Scope of IJES?
Title, abstract, keywordsIs the title concise and informative? Does the abstract give background, aim, methods, main results, and conclusion? Do the keywords reflect the main concepts?
NoveltyDoes the Introduction review recent relevant studies, state the research gap, and state the aim clearly?
MethodsAre the methods appropriate and described well enough to be repeated? Is ethical approval reported when humans or animals are involved?
Results and discussionAre the findings supported by clear data? Are they interpreted and compared critically with recent studies?
ConclusionDoes it answer the aim without new discussion?
ReferencesAt least 15 references, mostly primary sources and mostly from the last 10 years? Do citations and the reference list match?
PresentationAre structure, terminology, language, tables, and figures clear and consistent with the Author Guidelines?
IntegrityAny concern about plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, undisclosed AI use, or citation manipulation?

Writing the report

  1. Summary. Two or three sentences on what the manuscript does and its main claim.
  2. Major comments. Substantive issues on novelty, methods, analysis, and interpretation, each with a specific suggestion for improvement.
  3. Minor comments. Points on clarity, figures, tables, and references, with page or line numbers.
  4. Confidential comments to the editor. Concerns that should not be sent to the authors, such as suspected misconduct.
  5. Recommendation. Accept, minor revision, major revision, or decline.

Comments limited to grammar and layout do not meet the journal's standard. Be specific, respectful, and constructive, and do not include anything that could reveal your identity.

After the review

You may be asked to check the revised manuscript in a second round. The final decision is made by the editors, who take all reports into account. Reviewer names are listed only on the general Peer Reviewers page, not per issue or per article, to protect the double-blind process.

Related: Peer Review Process · Publication Ethics · Author Guidelines