Reviewer Guidelines

 

Reviewer Guidelines
Journal CERITA

1. Introduction

These Peer Reviewer Guidelines are designed to assist Editorial Board members and Peer Reviewers in evaluating manuscripts submitted to Journal CERITA (Creative Education of Research in Information Technology and Artificial Informatics). The journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure objectivity, fairness, and the highest scientific quality for published articles in the fields of Information Technology and Computer Science.

2. Ethical Duties & Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: Every manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers must not discuss, share, or disclose any content of the manuscript with third parties.
  • Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively and professionally, free from personal or institutional bias. Comments and criticisms should be constructive and supported by clear scientific arguments.
  • Conflict of Interest: If a Reviewer recognizes an author's identity or has professional, personal, or financial connections that could bias their evaluation, they must immediately decline the review invitation.
  • Promptness: Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the timeframe specified by the Editor. If an extension is required, please notify the Editorial Office immediately.

3. Manuscript Evaluation Components

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly based on the following core aspects:

A. Scope Alignment (Focus and Scope)

Does the topic of the article fall within the designated coverage of Journal CERITA (e.g., Business Intelligence, Expert Systems, Artificial Intelligence, Mobile Computing, Cyber Security, etc.)?

B. Originality & Significance

  • Does the research offer scientific novelty (originality) or a significant practical contribution to its field?
  • Is the literature review of prior studies (state-of-the-art) adequate to clearly define the research gap?

C. Methodology

  • Are the research design, data collection instruments, and analytical techniques described in sufficient, valid detail?
  • Is the methodology sound enough to be replicated by other researchers?

D. Results & Discussion

  • Are the findings presented clearly using relevant, well-structured tables, graphs, or illustrations?
  • Does the discussion interpret the results critically, comparing findings with existing theories or relevant prior studies?

E. Conclusion & References

  • Does the conclusion accurately and concisely answer the primary research questions?
  • Are the references up-to-date (minimum 80% from scientific journals published within the last 5 years) and formatted correctly according to the journal's citation style?

4. Final Recommendations & Editorial Options

At the end of the review process, the Reviewer must select one of the following decisions:

Recommendation Description / Conditions
Accept Submission The manuscript is of excellent quality, free of major flaws, and ready for publication without any modifications.
Revisions Required The manuscript requires minor revisions (e.g., grammatical fixes, minor reference additions, or slight data clarifications) without needing a secondary round of review.
Resubmit for Review The manuscript requires major revisions (e.g., rebuilding methodology, re-analyzing data, or rewriting major sections) and must undergo a new review cycle after being revised.
Decline Submission The manuscript is rejected due to fatal methodological flaws, lack of novelty, or because it falls completely outside the Focus & Scope of Journal CERITA.

5. System Access Instructions (OJS Reviewer Workflow)

The entire peer-review process is managed electronically via the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform using the following steps:

Step 1: Log In & Access User Dashboard
Log in to your account on the Journal CERITA OJS website. In your user dashboard, make sure your role is set to Reviewer, and click on the assigned manuscript title.
Step 2: Confirm Participation (Accept/Decline)
Read the manuscript title and abstract. Under the *Will you do the review?* section, click Accept Review to accept the assignment, or click Decline Review Request if you encounter a conflict of interest or scheduling constraints.
Step 3: Download the Manuscript File
Once accepted, proceed to the next tab. Locate the anonymized, peer-review version of the manuscript under the Review Files section and download it to your device.
Step 4: Fill Out Evaluation Form & Upload Comments
Complete the designated questionnaire in the *Reviewer Form* section. You can also type text feedback directly for the author and editor, and optionally upload an annotated copy of the manuscript file under Reviewer Files.
Step 5: Submit Final Recommendation
Select your final decision from the Recommendation dropdown menu (matching the criteria listed in Section 4), then click the Submit Review button to send your feedback to the Editor.