Reviewers play essential contributions to the succession of the journal and we highly appreciate the expertise and effort of each reviewer in evaluating our manuscripts. As a reviewer, we kindly expect you to evalute the substance matters of the manuscript and present suggestions for author(s) to improve their manuscript. JPU aims to publish high quality works that also accept manuscripts that report replication studies or non-significant findings, so long as the methods are robust and appropriate. 



As a reviewer, you are expected to evaluate the manuscript assigned to you in the objective manners. JPU aims to encourage learning atmosphere in the submission processes, both for the authors and reviewers. Hence, your comments should encourage author(s) to learn and improve their work quality and your recommendation should be made objectively based on the merits of the manuscript.


Ethical Consideration

When conducting a review, reviewers must abide with the below ethical principles:

  • Confidentiality. All reviewed works must remain confidential and must not be disclosed to any other parties. You should not ask someone else to conduct the review on your behalf.
  • Professional integrity. Reviewers must maintain professional attitude in reviewing the manuscript by: 1). accepting an invitation only when the reviewers are competent to critically evaluate the manuscript, 2). returning the review work within the stated timeline (usually 4 weeks upon the invitation), 3). not using the data or any other resources related to the reviewed manuscript for their personal use, and 4). ensuring there is no potential conflict of interests.
  • Fair and Objectiveness. Recommendation should only be made upon the merit of the manuscript, and must not be influenced by: 1). The affiliation/region of the author(s), which might be indicated in the manuscript, 2). Personal (religion, political, or sociocultural) values and preferences, and 3). Any other form of discrimination (including gender and race/ethnicity).

Please refer to the Publication Ethics for more comprehensive discussion about the ethical practice of a peer-reviewer.


Conflict of Interests

Conflict of interests are often unavoidable and sometimes this issue could be managed appropriately rather than be prohibited. If you think you have a potential conflict of interests, please consult to the editor before reviewing the manuscript. The editor will then assess any steps necessary to manage the issues (either cancelling your assignment or asking you to state it in the column provided in the review form).

Conflict of interests are generally classified below:

  1. Financial interests – when you involve in any business or financial transaction with the author(s) or the affiliation involved in the manuscript.
  2. Non-financial interests – when you have current or past personal or professional relationship with the author(s) or you work in the same institutions with the author(s).
  3. Indirect financial/non-financial interests – when someone close to you (your spouse, children, parents, or other close family members) has financial or non-financial interests as described above.



  1. Potential reviewers would be contacted by the editor via email, which contains a review invitation along with the manuscript title and abstract. 
  2. While considering taking the review task, reviewers should consider whether the topic is within their expertise and whether there is a potential conflict of interests. Should the latter becomes an issue, reviewers could discuss their competence with the Editor. 
  3. When the review task is deemed appropriate, reviewers click the "accept review request" link embedded in the invitation email to accept the invitation, which then they will be directed to their account and to download the manuscript file.When reviewers are unavailable to do the review, either due to their competence or their availability, they should click the "decline review request". 
  4. Should the reviewers are available for review, they would then be required to assess the manuscript and report their evaluation and recommendation in the form provided. Please consider the points in the “Aspects for Review” section in reviewing the manuscript.
  5. Once the task is complete, please click the email button to notify the editor.



In indicating your recommendation, you are required to choose one of the following options:

  1. ACCEPT (requires no further change),
  2. REVISIONS REQUIRED (minor revision; no another review round needed),
  3. REVISE & RESUBMIT (major revision; subject to another review round),
  4. RESUBMIT ELSEWHERE (resubmit to other journal - most likely due to irrelevant study scope),
  5. DECLINE (reject submission).

Please be mindful in presenting your suggestions and recommendations as we aim to create a learning atmosphere for the author(s) in improving their work qualities. 


Aspects for Review

Reviewers are expected to comment upon on the substance matter of the manuscript, rather than on the format/layout/editorial aspect. In preparing the review, reviewers could consider the below aspects:

  • Originality and contribution to the body of knowledge: does the manuscript reflect original works? Is the work novel or significant to the current body of knowledge?
  • Impact and implication to the indigenous context: does the manuscript present useful insights in the indigenous context? How is the study findings relevant to the Indonesian context? Are there any indigenous insights that can be drawn from the findings? Please note that the indigenous aspects do not necessarily have to be related to cultural analysis or comparison. The indigenous aspect should highlight more about how to “take the findings in the local context”. While such a discussion is ideally discussed throughout the manuscript, the insight for the indigenous context should be particularly elaborated in the “Impact and Implication in the Indigenous Context (Dampak dan Implikasi Ulayat)” section.
  • Plagiarism: While the editor takes necessary steps to ensure the originality of the manuscript, we would appreciate if the reviewers could consult the editor should he/she have read identical published paper or manuscript review invitation.
  • Coherence: Does the article have a clear and focused aim or research question? Is the aim or research question answered systematically and coherently in the result and discussion? Is the research method appropriate and robust to answer the study aim or research questions?
  • Methodology articulation (where relevant to the manuscript type): Is the method section robust and appropriate? Has the method section been discussed in a level of detail that enables replication?
  • Sound conclusion and implications: Does the conclusion accurately reflect the study? Are the implications drawn relevant to the study findings?
  • Cited references: How is the credibility and authenticity of the literatures cited in the manuscript? Are those cited references current and relevant? Have the authors demonstrated effort to obtain primary source of reference?

For further technical issues on the reviewing process, please click here.