Reviewer Guidelines

1. Read and Assess the Manuscript

Read the manuscript, tables, figures, and available supplementary files. Check the contribution, methods, results, interpretation, and writing, and compare the abstract with the main text. Identify any missing information that limits your assessment.

The initial editor has already screened scope, template compliance, and reference formatting. Do not repeat that screening; comment on those points only if you find a serious problem.

Every reviewer assesses the whole manuscript independently, including methods, analysis, validity, and reproducibility, as well as contribution, literature, interpretation, and clarity. Reviewers may identify the same problems and give the same recommendation.

2. Complete the Review Form

The eight rating questions follow the article-quality criteria (Element F) of the Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Sains dan Teknologi Nomor 374/DST/D.D1/HM.01.01/2026 on the technical guidelines for journal accreditation, in the order of that regulation. Answer each with Yes, Partly, or No.

Item	What to do
1. Title (F.1)	Informative and specific, and states the key finding. A study location belongs in the title only when the topic is specific to that region.
2. Abstract (F.2)	Complete and concise: background, objective, brief method, key results (not discussion), and brief conclusion, with no citations, figures, or tables. Review articles, case reports, and short communications may depart from this structure.
3. Keywords (F.3)	Standard terms that represent the main concepts of the article and help search engines find it.
4. Originality and research gap (F.4)	The Introduction gives an adequate state-of-the-art overview, justifies the novelty or research gap, and states a clear objective. A review article should make a contribution, be comprehensive, cite adequate and current literature, and include a section with the author's own analysis and opinion.
5. Analysis and synthesis (F.5)	The method is appropriate and sufficient, key findings are described with clear data, the results are linked to earlier concepts or theory, and they are critically compared with relevant current studies. Findings that are only described, without interpretation or comparison, are weak.
6. Conclusion (F.6)	Answers the objective, states the new or important finding, is supported by the results, and does not open new discussion.
7. Primary sources (F.7)	Most references are primary sources (journal articles, proceedings, theses, or research monographs), not compilations of other literature, and the number of references is adequate (at least 15). The editorial office counts the references; you judge whether they are appropriate and sufficient.
8. Currency of references (F.8)	Most references were published within the last 10 years. Classic works may support background or concepts, but not the comparison of findings or the justification of novelty.
9. Comments for the author (required)	Give your overall assessment, strengths, weaknesses, the relevance and accuracy of the cited literature, and the specific revisions you request. Explain every Partly or No answer here.
10. Confidential comments for the editor (optional)	State your confidence level (High, Medium, or Low) and why, and report any conflict of interest or concern about ethics, plagiarism, data integrity, or duplicate submission.

The ratings support your recommendation; they are not a score to average. If the manuscript does not give enough information to judge an item, choose Partly and state exactly what is missing. Do not choose No solely because information is missing.

3. Choose How to Communicate Revisions

Option	What the reviewer does	Submission
Website review form	Identify the parts needing revision and explain the required changes in the Comments for the author field.	Submit the completed form. No separate file is required.
Comments in the manuscript	Add comments to the relevant passages, tables, or figures in the manuscript DOCX.	Complete the form and upload the commented DOCX.
Optional correction matrix	List issues, locations, reasons, and suggested corrections in a separate Word table.	Complete the form and upload the correction-matrix DOCX.

Use the option that communicates the revisions most clearly. You may combine options, but you do not need to repeat the same comments in every format. If you upload a file, refer to it in the Comments for the author field.

4. Write Clear and Fair Comments

For each important issue, state where it occurs, what needs attention, why it matters, and what the author should do. Distinguish major issues affecting the evidence or conclusions from minor wording or presentation corrections. Missing reporting does not prove that a procedure was not performed.

Comments for the author are visible to the authors. Put concerns about ethics, misconduct, or your own confidence only in the confidential field for the editor.

Keep the manuscript confidential. Do not upload it, or any part of it, to external services, and do not use generative AI tools to assess it or to write your report (see the Generative AI Policy). Do not invent data, sources, requirements, or accusations. When you comment on the literature, ask for comparison with relevant current research; do not request references merely to meet a quota.

5. Select a Recommendation

Recommendation	When to choose it
Accept Submission	No substantive revision is needed.
Revisions Required	Corrections are needed and appear feasible, and the editor can check them without another full review. State in your comments whether they are minor or major.
Resubmit for Review	Substantial revision, such as new analysis or major rewriting, is needed, and the revised manuscript should be reviewed again.
Resubmit Elsewhere	The study may be sound, but it does not fit the scope or article type of Lingkar and is better suited to another journal. Explain why in your comments.
Decline Submission	An evidenced fundamental problem cannot reasonably be resolved by revision of this study.

6. Before Submitting

Check that the form contains an answer to every rating question, comments for the author that explain every Partly or No answer, and a justified recommendation. Ensure that authors can locate each issue and understand the required action. Upload any commented manuscript or optional correction matrix that you refer to in the form. Return your report within one month of accepting the invitation; if you expect a delay, tell the editorial office at once.

The stages of the process are described on the Peer-Review Process page.

Reviewers: if you are unable to review, or you have a conflict of interest, inform the editorial office at once.