Reviewer Guidelines

Guidelines for reviewer (s)

 

Thank you for your kind consideration to participate as JLWR reviewer. Listed below is the review outline:

  1. Please kindly check and fill the assessment form and upload the filled form in the discussion section in the OJS.
  2. If the manuscript (MS) is written in English, please give any suggestions regarding the writing (e.g., organization of ideas, paraphrasing, citing, grammar, and vocabularies, etc.).
  3. Formatting the MS should be conducted by the Section Editor (SE); thus, the reviewer is not obligated to check the format.
  4. As we proceed to endorse the journal to the international indexation committee, please underline the significance of the MS to support the development of specific science at an international level. Thus, the scientific and practical contributions are highlighted as well as the novelty of the research. Moreover, the research should be brought to wider audiences and geographically large enough. Therefore, study cases in specific areas are expected to be brought to wider discussions to support global challenges.

    JLWR’s review assessment form  (assessment form)

    No

    Review aspect

    Yes/No

    Comments

    1

    Does the title reflect the content? Does it show global problems? In case the research is conducted in a specific study site, please suggest to revise the title and show it as a study case

     

     

    2

    Does the abstract shortly synthesize the background and the aim of the study, the scientific/ practical contributions, the plausible methodology, and concisely illustrate the results and the conclusion of the study?

     

     

    3

    Does the introduction synthesize the appropriate background to conduct the study?

     

     

    4

    Are there enough references in the introduction to postulate the necessity of the study?

     

     

    5

    Is there clear research question and aim of the study in the introduction?

     

     

    6

    Does the methodology sound plausible and robust given the flow of the works, the underlining theory, and the cited references to support the methodological choices?

     

     

    7

    Are the results illustrated and described clearly, including the legend and the numbers or equations?

     

     

    8

    Are the figures and tables related and supporting the aim of the study?

     

     

    9

    Are the discussions related to the obtained results and to the aim of the study?

     

     

    10

    Are the discussions brought widely to reach larger audiences and to face the global challenges?

     

     

    11

    Are there enough references and valid evidence in the discussions?

     

     

    12

    Is the conclusion a statement of the significance of the study and future or wider statement or application? Please kindly remember that the conclusion is not a summary of findings.

     

     

    The study is therefore suggested to be (chose one option)

    1. Accepted
    2. Suggested for a revision (minor, major)
    3. Rejected

     

     

     

     

     

     

    ------------------#####################----------------------------

    Title Should Be Short and Identify Main Topic of Article, Consists of Maximum Fifteen Words

    Abstract: 

    The abstract, written in one paragraph, constitutes a summary of the manuscript consisting of brief background of the (knowledge gaps, impacts of the study) objectives of the study, methods, principal results, and conclusion. The length of the abstract should be between 250 and 300 words. Abbreviations should be clearly explained. The major findings should be stated concisely, comprehensively and appealing. These may include important points such as policy implication, breakthrough technology and theoretical and practical contribution to the science development. 

    Keywords:    contain four to six most important words or phrases that represent the content of the manuscript, written in lowercase and a comma is placed between the words or group of words, for example diversity, Gunung Putri Pond, phytoremediation, pollutants

    1. Introduction

    The introduction includes research background which include identification from the knowledge gaps providing by rigorous literature review, objectives of the study, theoretical and practical contribution to the science development of the study.

    1. Materials and Methods

    Original research should include brief descriptions of the study site, field survey techniques, experimental design, and other analytical approaches. All described methodologies should refer to the scientifically approved methodologies. In case, the study applies a new method technical description of the methods should be sufficiently described to make it possible to repeat the experimental works. While for review paper should refer to the international guidelines for review paper such as: PRISMA, Bibliometric, Cochrane. Appropriate tables and figures should be used to reduce detailed verbal descriptions of the methods. 

    2.1 Second Level Subtitles

    A more detailed explanation in each subtitle (Material and Method, Results, Discussion) can be added in the form of paragraphs which are preceded by second level subtitles which are written upright and in bold. This paragraph gives clearer and more detailed information contained in the second level subtitle. 

    1. Results and discussion

    This section contains the results obtained of the research. The presentation of the results should follow the order of the previously explained data analysis in the method section. It is preferable to present detailed results in tables and/or figures and to devote the text to summary statements and analyses next to the tables/figures. Display data in tables if numerical precision is important, in figures if trends are paramount.

    The discussion contains a review and analysis of the results related to the issues raised. It should be written systematically and describes the author's view of the results obtained with a logical and scientific explanation. Avoid discussing too detailed references cited. As for the applied research, the discussion should be directed to the application and implication of the study and should be logically well described.

    A good discussion provides broad syntheses and stresses the relevance of the paper. In this section, authors should indicate the significance of their research (both theoretical and or practical), how it relates to current knowledge, and any avenues that it suggests for further research. Informed speculation is acceptable as long as it is clearly identified as such. Authors should avoid merely restating their results or re-summarizing the literature.

    1. Conclusion

    The conclusion is not a summary of the Results or Discussion but contains the implications that are not mentioned but implied in the Results and Discussion to be concluded in this section. The conclusion answers the research objectives and may be added with suggestions or recommendations related to further research, written in one paragraph without a number.

    Data availability statement

    To enhance the scientific credibility of the study, all data included and used in the study must be openly declared. In case the data contains confidential and ethically private information, it should be stated in this section.

    Funding Agencies

    All fund sources to conduct the study should be declared in this section.

    Conflict of interests

    Any identified and possible conflict of interests are stated in this section.

    Acknowledgment

    In this section authors acknowledge their gratitude to the personnel who contributed directly to the project or the preparation of the manuscript. The names of funding organizations should be written in full.