Reviewer Guidelines

Role, Ethics, and Process

Double-blind & confidentiality. Treat all materials as confidential. Do not reveal your identity, share files, or discuss the manuscript outside the review.
Conflicts of interest. If you have a professional, financial, personal, or project-overlap conflict, decline or disclose immediately.
Timeliness. Accept a review only if you can deliver on time. If delays arise, inform the editor promptly.
Scope fit. Confirm that the manuscript aligns with JASSR’s focus on Asian social science (including Indonesia, comparative East–West/Global South perspectives) and that it is in English, per journal policy.

How To Structure Your Report

Brief summary (2–4 sentences): What the paper asks, how it answers, and what it finds.
Major issues: Substantive concerns affecting validity, clarity, ethics, or contribution (methods, analysis, theory, originality).
Minor issues: Clarity, style, formatting, small methodological clarifications, and figure/table polish.
Recommendation: Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Reject — justify with evidence and keep the tone constructive.

Evaluation Criteria (What to Look For)
Presentation & writing

Cohesion & argument: Is the argument coherent, logically organized, and easy to follow?
Title: Concise, informative, no unexplained abbreviations; reflects the main contribution.
Length & organization: Identify sections to expand/condense/combine. Writing should be concise and readable, consistent with the JASSR template.

Abstract

200–250 words; no citations; minimal abbreviations. Clearly signals background, purpose, methods, key results/findings, and conclusions/implications for a broad audience.

Introduction

Situates the study in the relevant, existing literature.
State the gap/novelty, research questions/objectives, and (if applicable) hypotheses and approach.
Justifies why it matters for Asian contexts (including Indonesia and/or comparative Global South/East–West debates) (when applicable).

Method (replicability and rigor)

Sufficient detail to evaluate and replicate: design; setting/timeframe; population/sample & sampling; instruments/measures; procedures/protocols; analysis plan; software.
Ethics: Approvals/consent, data protection, and risk mitigation where applicable.

Qualitative specifics (as applicable):

Approach & paradigm (e.g., phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, case study, narrative, thematic analysis) and rationale.
Reflexivity (positionality, access, bias mitigation).
Sampling & participants (strategy, criteria, size rationale—saturation/information power).
Data collection (interviews/FGDs/observation/docs), language, duration, recording/transcription; translation/back-translation for quoted material.
Analysis (framework and coding; who coded; CAQDAS such as NVivo/ATLAS.ti/MAXQDA; how disagreements were resolved).
Trustworthiness (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability: triangulation, member checking, audit trail, thick description, negative cases).

Quantitative specifics (as applicable):

Measurement validity/reliability, model specification, assumptions/diagnostics, effect sizes, confidence intervals, exact p-values, and a justified analytic strategy.

Mixed methods (as applicable):

Design type (convergent, explanatory, exploratory), integration points (design, methods, interpretation), and how strands inform each other.

Results/Findings

Report processed results aligned with objectives; tables/figures are precise, labeled, and referenced.
Quantitative: Appropriate statistics; effect sizes/CIs; coherent numbering and captions.
Qualitative: Clear themes/subthemes with concise, anonymized quotes; note divergent/negative cases; explain how themes were derived.
Mixed methods: Keep quantitative results and qualitative findings distinct, then explain integrated insights.

Discussion

Interprets results relative to the questions, prior literature, and Asian/Indonesian context; clarifies theoretical/empirical/policy contributions.
Acknowledges limitations and plausible alternatives; avoids over-claiming.
Outlines implications and future research.

Conclusion

Synthesizes key takeaways and answers the objectives without introducing new data. Appropriate, concise implications/recommendations are welcome.

Figures & Tables

Informative, legible, and necessary captions; concise captions; units, scale bars, and symbols/colors explained; ≥300 dpi (figures); tables editable (not images).

References

Chicago Author–Date; in-text and list entries match; DOIs/URLs where available; current and balanced (≥80% journals; recent 5–10 years). Check accuracy and relevance.

Policy compliance

English-only, JASSR template (Times New Roman, 12 pt, 1.5 spacing), page & line numbers; double-blind ready (no identifying info in main file); required ethics statements included where relevant.

Making the recommendation

Accept: Ready or only trivial edits.
Minor revision: Solid study; limited clarifications or polish.
Major revision: Publishable potential but needs substantive methodological/analytic/theoretical restructuring or additional evidence/clarity.
Reject: Out of scope, insufficient contribution/rigor, severe methodological flaws, or ethical concerns.

Professional conduct

Be constructive, specific, and courteous. Cite examples (page/line) and propose concrete remedies. Focus on the work, not the authors.
If you suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical practices, or data issues, alert the editor privately with evidence.

Quick checklist for reviewers

Clear contribution and scope fit (Asia-focused, Indonesia-relevant, and/or comparative).
Transparent, sound methods (qual/quant/mixed; ethics addressed).
Results align with questions; figures/tables clear; claims supported.
Discussion interprets responsibly; limitations and implications are stated.
Conclusion synthesizes (no new data).
English clarity; structure per JASSR template; references compliant (Chicago Author–Date, DOIs).
No conflicts of interest; anonymity preserved.