Reviewer Guide

CSRI Journal Logo

Reviewer Guidelines

Community Service Research Innovation (CSRI) | P-ISSN: 3062-9799 | E-ISSN: 3048-2747

The Community Service Research Innovation (CSRI) journal relies on the expertise of peer reviewers to ensure the quality, integrity, and societal relevance of published work. As CSRI focuses on applied research with direct community impact, reviewers are expected to evaluate not only academic rigor but also practical contributions and sustainability of the proposed solutions.

1. Role of Reviewers

  • Safeguard the quality, originality, and ethical standards of the journal.
  • Provide constructive and actionable feedback that helps authors improve their work.
  • Ensure that manuscripts align with CSRI’s focus on community service, sustainability, and societal transformation.
  • Advise the editorial board on the suitability of the manuscript for publication.

2. Ethical Responsibilities

  1. Confidentiality: Manuscripts and review comments must remain confidential.
  2. Objectivity: Reviews should be fair, unbiased, and evidence-based.
  3. Conflict of Interest: Disclose any personal, financial, or professional conflicts.
  4. Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed deadline (typically 2–4 weeks).

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess manuscripts on the following aspects:

Criteria Description Rating (1-5) Comments
Relevance Alignment with CSRI’s focus and scope    
Originality Novelty and innovation in approach or solution    
Methodology Appropriateness and rigor of research design    
Practical Impact Potential benefits and sustainability for the community    

4. Structure of the Review Report

  • Summary: Brief restatement of the manuscript’s purpose and findings.
  • Strengths: Highlight positive aspects and contributions.
  • Weaknesses: Identify major issues or gaps.
  • Suggestions: Offer specific recommendations for improvement.
  • Recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject.

Example Feedback Phrases

  • "The manuscript presents a relevant and timely topic with strong community relevance."
  • "While the topic is significant, the methodology requires clearer justification."
  • "The discussion could be strengthened by comparing findings to similar international studies."

6. Decision Categories

  • Accept: Publish as is.
  • Minor Revision: Small changes needed before publication.
  • Major Revision: Significant changes required; resubmission needed.
  • Reject: Manuscript unsuitable for publication in current form.