Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Review Guidance

Reviewer Guidelines

Multidisciplinary Journals (MJ)  |  e-ISSN 3047-8499

Peer reviewers help Multidisciplinary Journals (MJ) evaluate the originality, validity, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, clarity, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. Reviews must be independent, evidence-based, constructive, respectful, and appropriate to the manuscript's discipline and article type. These guidelines are aligned with the MJ Article Template Revised 2026, the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, and the journal's published editorial policies.

Review modelDouble-anonymous peer review
Primary basisMJ Article Template Revised 2026
Reviewer roleAdvisory, not decision-making
Editorial authorityFinal decision rests with the editor

1. Purpose and Policy Boundaries

This page explains reviewer conduct, manuscript-evaluation criteria, report structure, and recommendation categories. To prevent duplication or contradiction, related matters are governed as follows:

Journal Document Primary Function
Editorial and Peer Review Policy Review model, reviewer appointment, workflow, editorial authority, decision safeguards, and processing targets.
Reviewer Guidelines Ethical reviewer conduct, template-aligned assessment criteria, and preparation of the review report.
MJ Article Template Required manuscript structure, content elements, declarations, and formatting instructions.
Publication Ethics Policy Handling suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, unethical research, authorship concerns, and other misconduct.
Generative AI Policy Permitted and prohibited AI use by authors, reviewers, editors, and production staff.

2. Before Accepting an Invitation

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when able to provide an independent and competent assessment within the stated period. Before accepting, reviewers must:

  • Check expertise: confirm that the manuscript's subject, theory, methods, or analysis falls within the reviewer's competence. Partial expertise should be disclosed to the editor.
  • Check availability: accept only when the review can be completed within the agreed deadline. Request an extension or decline promptly when necessary.
  • Disclose conflicts: report any financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, collaborative, competitive, ideological, or other interest that could reasonably affect impartiality.
  • Protect review integrity: do not accept merely to obtain early access to the manuscript, obstruct publication, benefit a competitor, or promote one's own work.
  • Do not delegate: do not share the manuscript with or involve a colleague, student, or trainee without prior permission from the editor. Any approved contributor must be identified to the editor and follow the same confidentiality requirements.
When uncertain about a conflict of interest:
Disclose the circumstances to the handling editor and allow the editor to decide whether recusal, replacement, or another safeguard is required. Disclosure does not automatically imply misconduct.

3. Confidentiality, Anonymity, and AI Use

  • Treat the manuscript, supplementary files, data, review invitation, correspondence, and review report as confidential editorial records.
  • Do not disclose, distribute, quote, discuss, photograph, store in an unauthorized location, or use unpublished material for personal, institutional, competitive, or commercial advantage.
  • Do not attempt to identify the authors. If identifying information appears in the anonymized file or the reviewer recognizes an author, notify the editor without contacting the author.
  • Do not communicate directly with authors about the submission. All communication must be mediated through OJS and the handling editor.
  • Do not upload the manuscript or any confidential part of it to public generative-AI, translation, summarization, plagiarism-checking, or other third-party services where confidentiality and data retention cannot be assured.
  • Any use of an expressly approved assistive tool requires prior journal permission, appropriate safeguards, disclosure to the editor, and human verification. The reviewer remains fully responsible for the report.
  • After completing the review, delete downloaded copies and notes that are not required by the authorized OJS record. Confidentiality continues after rejection, withdrawal, acceptance, or publication.

4. General Evaluation Principles

Review the manuscript as a scholarly work within its own discipline and declared article type. The review should determine whether the evidence and reasoning support the claims, not whether the reviewer would have written the study in the same way.

Scope and relevance
Fits MJ's stated disciplines and readership.
Originality and contribution
Adds identifiable scholarly or practical value.
Rigor and validity
Uses defensible methods, evidence, and analysis.
Research integrity
Meets ethical, authorship, data, and disclosure requirements.
Clarity and coherence
Presents a traceable argument and readable evidence.
Proportional claims
Conclusions do not exceed the design or evidence.

Reviewers assess scholarly quality and reporting adequacy. They are not expected to rewrite the article, provide comprehensive language editing, reproduce the entire analysis, or impose personal stylistic preferences. Language problems should be identified when they prevent reliable evaluation.

5. Template-Aligned Review Criteria

5.1 Anonymized Manuscript and Title
  • Does the review file omit author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, file properties, and other identifying information?
  • Is the title concise, informative, written in sentence case, and no longer than 18 words?
  • Does the title avoid unnecessary abbreviations, formulas, nonessential locations, and generic wording such as “A Study of”?
  • Does the title accurately represent the subject, design, or principal contribution without overstating the findings?
5.2 Abstract and Keywords
  • Is the abstract 150–250 words in one paragraph and understandable without consulting the main text?
  • Does it clearly contain the background/context, objective, methods, principal results with appropriate evidence, and conclusion?
  • Are the abstract's results and conclusions consistent with the manuscript and free from unsupported claims?
  • Does it avoid citations, undefined abbreviations, tables, and figures?
  • For an Indonesian-language manuscript, are Indonesian and English titles and abstracts supplied?
  • Are 3–6 specific English keywords provided and separated by semicolons?
5.3 Introduction
  • Does the introduction establish the problem, context, significance, and relevance to the field?
  • Does it critically synthesize relevant and current literature rather than present a textbook-style background or list of studies?
  • Is the research gap, unresolved problem, or scholarly need explicitly identified?
  • Is the novelty or contribution credible and appropriately distinguished from previous work?
  • Does the section end with a clear objective, research question, or hypothesis?
5.4 Literature Review or Theoretical Framework (Optional)
  • Is a separate section necessary for the manuscript's discipline and argument?
  • Are theories, concepts, and prior evidence synthesized critically and connected to the research problem?
  • Is the framework used consistently in the methods, analysis, or interpretation?
  • For conceptual articles, does the adapted structure support a coherent and original scholarly argument?
5.5 Methods
  • Is the study design appropriate to the objective, research question, and disciplinary standards?
  • Are the setting, period, participants, population, sample, data sources, materials, and selection or sampling criteria clearly described?
  • Are instruments, measures, variables, procedures, interventions, or analytical frameworks sufficiently described?
  • Are validity, reliability, trustworthiness, quality-control procedures, assumptions, and possible sources of bias addressed where applicable?
  • Are analysis methods, software, decision criteria, and missing-data or robustness procedures appropriate and reproducible where applicable?
  • Does the manuscript follow an appropriate reporting guideline when relevant, such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, COREQ/SRQR, CARE, or ARRIVE?
  • Are ethical approval, informed consent, privacy, safety, and discipline-specific safeguards stated and adequate?
5.6 Results
  • Are the findings presented logically and directly connected to the stated objectives or research questions?
  • Are relevant positive, negative, null, unexpected, or non-significant findings reported honestly where applicable?
  • Are statistical, qualitative, computational, historical, legal, or other forms of evidence reported with sufficient detail for the discipline?
  • Are tables and figures necessary, accurate, editable, self-explanatory, consecutively numbered, cited in the text, and free from unnecessary duplication?
  • Are table titles placed above tables, figure captions below figures, and abbreviations, symbols, units, and sources explained?
  • Is interpretation reserved for the Discussion unless an integrated Results and Discussion structure is justified by disciplinary practice?
5.7 Discussion
  • Does the discussion interpret rather than merely repeat the results?
  • Does it explain how the findings answer the research question and compare with relevant literature or theory?
  • Are theoretical, methodological, policy, professional, technical, or practical implications explained proportionately?
  • Are unexpected or contradictory findings addressed?
  • Are important limitations, uncertainty, bias, boundary conditions, and alternative explanations acknowledged?
  • Are claims about generalizability, causality, effectiveness, or impact supported by the design and evidence?
5.8 Conclusion
  • Does the conclusion answer the stated objective and identify the principal contribution?
  • Are implications and recommendations concise, realistic, and supported by the findings?
  • Does it avoid repeating the abstract, introducing new evidence, or making unsupported claims?
  • Is it written as one or more coherent paragraphs rather than a bullet list?
5.9 Transparency and Required Declarations
  • Acknowledgements: non-author assistance is identified, but author-identifying acknowledgements are excluded from the anonymized review file.
  • Funding: funding source, grant number, and funder role are stated, or the absence of specific funding is declared.
  • Author contributions: contributions are transparently described using the CRediT roles.
  • Conflict of interest: relevant financial and non-financial competing interests are disclosed, or their absence is declared.
  • Ethical approval and consent: the approving body, approval reference/date, and consent process are supplied where applicable; non-applicability is explained.
  • Data availability: access to data, code, materials, or evidence is stated; restrictions and controlled-access procedures are justified.
  • Generative AI: permitted use is disclosed with the tool, version, purpose, and human verification, or non-use is declared. AI tools are not listed as authors.

Note: reviewers evaluate whether these declarations are adequate and consistent. Formal authorship verification and policy enforcement remain editorial responsibilities.

5.10 References
  • Are the references relevant, sufficiently current for the subject, and balanced with essential seminal or authoritative sources?
  • Does every in-text citation have a corresponding reference and vice versa?
  • Is APA Style, 7th edition, applied consistently, with DOI links in https://doi.org/... format where available?
  • Are primary and peer-reviewed sources used where appropriate, while legitimate books, standards, laws, datasets, reports, archival records, or other discipline-specific sources are retained when necessary?
  • Are factual claims supported by suitable sources, and are retracted or unreliable references avoided?
  • Are citation suggestions directly relevant and academically justified?

Reviewers must not require arbitrary citation quotas, citations to their own work, or citations intended primarily to increase a person's or journal's metrics.

5.11 Appendix and Supplementary Material
  • Is supplementary material necessary, clearly labelled, cited in the main manuscript, and consistent with the reported study?
  • Does it support transparency, verification, or replication without being used to hide information essential to understanding the article?
  • Where the editor indicates that supplementary files form part of peer review, have they been assessed with the same standards of confidentiality and integrity?

6. Article-Type and Discipline-Specific Assessment

MJ accepts several scholarly article types across multiple disciplines. Reviewers must apply criteria appropriate to the declared article type rather than requiring every manuscript to follow an identical empirical design.

Article Type Additional Review Emphasis
Research Article Research question, design, sampling or evidence selection, analysis, validity or trustworthiness, ethics, reproducibility, and supported conclusions.
Review Article Clear review question and scope, transparent search/selection/synthesis methods where applicable, comprehensive and balanced evidence, current coverage, and justified conclusions.
Conceptual Article Originality and coherence of the argument, conceptual definitions, engagement with prior theory and evidence, logical development, propositions where relevant, and scholarly utility.
Case Study Case selection and context, evidence triangulation, analytical transparency, ethical safeguards, credible interpretation, limitations, and transferable insight without unjustified generalization.
Technical or Methods Paper Technical novelty, specification, validation, benchmarking, usability, reproducibility, limitations, safety where relevant, and comparison with existing approaches.

Discipline-specific reporting practices may justify an adapted structure, including integrated Results and Discussion. Any adaptation must remain clear, rigorous, transparent, and appropriate to the field. A reviewer should explain why a discipline-specific requirement is necessary rather than applying standards from an unrelated field.

7. Ethical and Integrity Concerns

Reviewers should alert the editor confidentially when they identify a credible concern, including:

Plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap
Duplicate or redundant submission/publication
Fabricated, falsified, or manipulated data/images
Missing or questionable ethical approval/consent
Authorship, conflict-of-interest, or funding concern
Citation manipulation or undisclosed substantial AI use

Describe the evidence precisely in the confidential comments to the editor. Do not accuse the authors in the comments intended for them, conduct an independent investigation, contact the authors or their institution, or disclose the concern outside the journal. The editor determines the appropriate process under the Publication Ethics Policy.

8. Preparing the Review Report

A useful report is specific enough for the editor to make a reasoned decision and for the authors to improve the manuscript. Reviewers should use the following structure:

1
Brief summaryState the manuscript's purpose, approach, and principal contribution in neutral language to demonstrate understanding.
2
Overall assessmentIdentify major strengths, the manuscript's contribution, and the most important limitations affecting validity or publishability.
3
Major commentsNumber each substantive issue. Explain why it matters, identify the relevant section/page/line, and describe what evidence, clarification, analysis, or revision is needed.
4
Minor commentsList localized issues involving clarity, terminology, presentation, references, tables, figures, or consistency.
5
Confidential comments to the editorReport conflicts, integrity concerns, sensitive context, or reasoning that should not appear in the author-facing report. Do not contradict the author comments without explanation.
6
RecommendationSelect the category that best reflects whether the identified issues can be resolved through proportionate revision. The recommendation is confidential and advisory.
Constructive language Critique the work, not the authors. Use professional language such as “The manuscript would be strengthened by...” or “The current evidence does not yet support...” Personal attacks, humiliation, discriminatory language, hostility, speculation about motives, and unsupported allegations are prohibited.

9. Recommendation Categories

Recommendation Reviewer Guidance
Accept The manuscript is publishable in its current scholarly form, subject only to editorial and technical checks. Use sparingly.
Minor Revision Limited, clearly defined corrections are required and do not alter the central design, analysis, or conclusions.
Major Revision Substantial clarification, reanalysis, restructuring, or additional reporting is required, but the core work may be capable of meeting journal standards.
Reject and Resubmit Fundamental redevelopment is necessary. Any later manuscript is treated as a new submission without assurance of review or acceptance.
Reject The manuscript is out of scope, lacks a sufficient contribution, has a fundamental and unresolvable validity problem, presents unacceptable ethical concerns, or cannot be made suitable through proportionate revision.

The reviewer recommendation is advisory. Reviewer votes are not counted mechanically. The handling editor and Editor-in-Chief consider the manuscript, all reports, author responses, applicable policies, and any ethical or legal issue when making the final decision.

10. Reviewing a Revised Manuscript

  • Read the authors' point-by-point response together with the revised manuscript and any marked version supplied.
  • Determine whether each substantive concern has been addressed adequately, not merely whether the authors agreed with every suggestion.
  • Accept a reasoned academic response when the authors justify why a recommendation was not adopted and the manuscript remains valid.
  • Focus on unresolved issues and material problems introduced by revision. Do not raise unrelated new requirements unless they are necessary to correct a serious oversight.
  • Maintain confidentiality and disclose any new conflict of interest.

11. Prohibited Reviewer Practices

  • using confidential ideas, data, methods, images, or text before publication;
  • submitting an AI-generated or copied review without independent human evaluation;
  • contacting authors directly or revealing reviewer identity within the report or uploaded file;
  • delaying a review deliberately to disadvantage an author or competitor;
  • requesting irrelevant citations, coercing citation of the reviewer's work, or seeking to manipulate citation metrics;
  • recommending acceptance or rejection for financial, institutional, political, personal, or other non-scholarly reasons;
  • making discriminatory, abusive, defamatory, or unsupported accusations; or
  • impersonating another person, transferring an invitation without permission, or coordinating a predetermined review outcome.

12. Submission of the Review and Assistance

Submit the completed report and confidential recommendation through the assigned OJS review task. Do not send the review through personal messaging applications. If a technical problem, conflict, delay, suspected confidentiality breach, or serious integrity concern arises, contact the handling editor promptly through OJS or the official journal contact page.

Reviewer Resources Use OJS as the authoritative review and communication record OJS Login Download Article Template Contact the Journal