Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer plays a critical role in ensuring the quality and relevance of published articles. Please assess the submitted manuscript using the following criteria:
1. Presentation
  • Does the paper present a cohesive and structured argument?
  • Are the objectives, process, and outcomes of the community service activity clearly articulated?
  • Are the components of the article logically connected and easy to follow?
2. Writing
  • Does the title accurately reflect the manuscript's content?
  • Is the writing clear, concise, and easy to understand for readers from diverse backgrounds in marketing management?
  • Are terms and concepts explained clearly?
3. Length
  • Are there sections that should be expanded for clarity or removed to reduce redundancy?
  • Are any parts overly descriptive or lacking in detail?
  • Could some information be more effectively summarized or combined?
4. Title
  • Is the title concise and informative?
  • Does it avoid unnecessary abbreviations or generic terms?
  • Does it reflect the main activity, outcome, or focus of the article?
5. Abstract 
 
Does the abstract include the following elements?
  • Aim of the community service program or intervention
  • Method or approach used
  • Key results or outcomes
  • Conclusion or impact of the activity
6. Introduction
  • Is the background of the issue or community problem clearly described?
  • Does the introduction include relevant references or state-of-the-art practices?
  • Is the novelty or community need clearly stated?
  • Are the objectives or the purpose of the community service activity clearly outlined?
7. Method
  • Are the methods or stages of community service described in detail?
  • Can the service activity be replicated by other practitioners?
  • Are the target location, population, tools or materials, and implementation strategy clearly described?
  • Is the data collection and analysis method (if applicable) appropriately explained?
8. Results and Discussion
  • Are the results processed and presented clearly (e.g., in tables or figures where appropriate)?
  • Are results clearly linked to the objectives stated in the Introduction?
  • Does the discussion compare the outcome with previous similar efforts, best practices, or health policies?
  • Does the author offer a scientific interpretation of the findings?
  • Are the implications for community health or policy explained?
  • Are limitations of the intervention or program acknowledged?
  • Are suggestions for future community engagement or research provided?
9. Conclusion
  • Does the conclusion answer the stated objectives?
  • Are implications or recommendations (if any) clearly and briefly stated?
  • Is the conclusion written in paragraph form (not bullet points)?
10. References
  • Does the manuscript use a reference manager (Mendeley, Zotero, EndNote)?
  • Are most of the cited sources published within the last 10 years?
  • Do at least 80% of the references come from peer-reviewed scientific journals or reputable sources?
Your comments and evaluation are highly valuable in maintaining the academic quality and practical relevance of Jurnal Ekonomi, Manajemen, Bisnis dan Akuntansi . Please provide constructive feedback and recommendations for improvement, revision, or rejection where necessary.