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 accessible to a multidisciplinary health audience?
  • 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 Inovasi Kerja Nyata (JIKN). Please provide constructive feedback and recommendations for improvement, revision, or rejection where necessary.