REVIEWER-ETHICS

REVIEWER ETHICS

1. Neutrality; the reviewer is fair, objective, unbiased, independent, and only in favour of scientific truth. The script review process is carried out professionally without distinguishing the writer’s background. The reviewer is prohibited conduct a review of papers involving himself, either directly or indirectly.
2. Professional; reviewer should be critical and professional in assessing a paper (related to his expertise), open about new things, able to keep the secret of the things being assessed, does not take personal advantage of the paper he assesses, as well as has a passion for improving written works. The reviewer has the right to refuse a script if it does not correspond to his expertise. He then can recommend it to the other more competent reviewers in accordance with the scope of the publication.
3. Quality assurance; reviewer has a duty to assist editors in improving the quality of the paper he reviews. The reviewer analyzes papers on the substance not on grammar, punctuation, and typos. The reviewer is required to uphold the basic principles and scientific analysis in the process of reviewing a paper. The reviewer works on the principle of truth, novelty, and originality; prioritizes the benefit of the paper for the development of science, technology, and innovation; as well as understands the impact of paper on the development of science.
4. Punctuality; reviewer reviews the script and gives a response to the editor quickly, expected to be on time. If the time is not enough, the reviewer then informs the editor with a clear reason for the sake of discipline and regularity of journal publication.
5. Disclosure of conflicts of interest; reviewer upholds copyright and privacy of each other in order to avoid conflicts of interest. Should a conflict of interest arise with other parties, the reviewer must finish it justly and wisely.