Reviewer Guide

 

CSRI Journal Cover
Reviewer Guidelines

Community Service Research Innovation (CSRI)

P-ISSN: 3062-9799   |   E-ISSN: 3048-2747   |   Publisher: PT. Inovasi Analisis Data

 

Community Service Research Innovation (CSRI) is committed to maintaining academic quality, ethical integrity, and practical relevance through a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers play an essential role in evaluating the originality, methodology, ethical compliance, clarity, and community impact of submitted manuscripts. CSRI sincerely appreciates reviewers’ expertise and professional contribution to improving the quality of scholarly publication.

 

Reviewer Role

Reviewers provide expert, fair, and constructive assessments to help editors determine whether a manuscript meets CSRI’s scholarly and ethical standards.
 

Ethical Duty

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, evaluate objectively, and provide evidence-based comments.
 

Editorial Support

Reviewers assist the editorial board by recommending acceptance, revision, resubmission, or rejection based on manuscript quality.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Confidentiality
Manuscript content and review comments must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage.		 Objectivity
Reviews must be fair, unbiased, professional, and based only on scholarly merit.		 Constructive Feedback
Comments should be clear, specific, respectful, and useful for manuscript improvement.		 Timeliness
Reviews should be completed within the agreed period, generally 2–4 weeks.

2. Evaluation Criteria

Criteria Assessment Focus Reviewer Score
Scope Relevance Alignment with CSRI focus on community service, social innovation, and development. 1–5
Originality Novelty, contribution, and originality of the idea, intervention, or findings. 1–5
Methodology Appropriateness, clarity, rigor, and reproducibility of the research or community service method. 1–5
Community Impact Practical benefits, sustainability, scalability, and relevance for community development. 1–5
Results and Discussion Clarity of findings, logical interpretation, evidence quality, and relation to previous studies. 1–5
Writing and References Academic clarity, organization, APA 7 citation style, and quality of recent references. 1–5

3. Structure of the Review Report

Summary

Briefly describe the purpose and main contribution.

 Strengths

Identify valuable aspects of the manuscript.

 Weaknesses

Explain major issues, gaps, or limitations.

 Suggestions

Provide specific and actionable recommendations.

 Decision

Recommend accept, revise, resubmit, or reject.

4. Decision Categories

 
Accept

Suitable for publication.
 
Minor Revision

Minor improvements required.
 
Major Revision

Substantial improvement required.
 
Reject

Not suitable in current form.

5. Providing Effective Reviews

  • Use clear, respectful, and professional language.
  • Differentiate major issues from minor editorial corrections.
  • Support criticism with examples from the manuscript.
  • Recommend improvements that are realistic and actionable.
  • Avoid personal criticism, vague comments, or unsupported claims.

6. Reviewer Resources

COPE Guidelines
Publication Ethics Resources		 Elsevier Reviewer Hub
Reviewer Information		 Reviewer Academy
Reviewer Training

Final Notes

Reviewers may decline invitations if the manuscript is outside their expertise or if there is a conflict of interest. Timely and constructive reviews are essential to support responsible scholarly publishing and improve the quality of community service research.

Contact: editor@analysisdata.co.id