REVIEW GUIDELINES

FOR REVIEWERS

  1. Introduction

Thank you for your willingness to serve as a reviewer for Jurnal Ampere. Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal.

The purpose of the peer-review process is to provide constructive, objective, fair, and timely feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts and assists editors in making informed publication decisions.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide comments that are clear, professional, and supported by scientific reasoning.

 

  1. Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should ensure that:

  1. The manuscript falls within their area of expertise.
  2. They have sufficient time to complete the review within the requested review period.
  3. They have no actual or potential conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, or research presented in the manuscript.
  4. They can conduct the review objectively and independently.

If reviewers are unable to complete the review, they are encouraged to decline the invitation promptly so that the editor can assign another qualified reviewer.

 

  1. Confidentiality and Publication Ethics

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  1. Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.
  2. Not share, distribute, copy, or disclose any part of the manuscript without permission from the editor.
  3. Not use unpublished information contained in the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
  4. Not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript unless authorized by the editor.
  5. Declare any actual or potential conflict of interest.
  6. Conduct the review objectively, fairly, and professionally.
  7. Alert the editor to any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other ethical concerns.

 

Follow applicable publication ethics principles, including the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

  1. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria.

4.1 Relevance to the Journal

Reviewers should assess whether:

  1. The manuscript is consistent with the Focus and Scope of Jurnal Ampere.
  2. The topic is relevant to Electrical Engineering and related fields covered by the journal.
  3. The manuscript provides an appropriate contribution to the journal's readership.

 

4.2 Originality and Novelty

Reviewers should assess whether:

  1. The manuscript presents original research.
  2. The research provides a clear novelty or new contribution.
  3. The contribution is scientifically or technologically meaningful.
  4. The manuscript adequately distinguishes its contribution from previous studies.

 

4.3 Title, Abstract, and Keywords

Reviewers should evaluate whether:

  1. The title is concise, accurate, and representative of the research.
  2. The abstract clearly describes the background, objectives, methodology, main results, and conclusions.
  3. The abstract is consistent with the contents of the manuscript.
  4. The keywords are relevant and appropriately represent the main topics of the research.

 

4.4 Introduction

Reviewers should evaluate whether:

  1. The research background is clearly presented.
  2. The research problem or research gap is clearly identified.
  3. The research objectives are clearly stated.
  4. Relevant and recent literature is adequately discussed.
  5. The relationship between previous research and the present study is clearly explained.
  6. The novelty and significance of the research are clearly stated.

 

4.5 Research Methodology

Reviewers should assess whether:

  1. The methodology is appropriate for achieving the research objectives.
  2. The research design and procedures are clearly described.
  3. Experimental procedures, system designs, algorithms, simulations, or analytical methods are adequately explained.
  4. Materials, instruments, datasets, and data collection procedures are sufficiently described.
  5. The methodology is sufficiently detailed to allow the research to be replicated.
  6. Data analysis methods are appropriate and scientifically justified.

 

4.6 Results and Discussion

Reviewers should evaluate whether:

  1. The results are presented clearly and systematically.
  2. Figures, tables, graphs, and equations are relevant and properly explained.
  3. The data are analyzed accurately.
  4. The results directly address the research objectives.
  5. The discussion provides appropriate scientific interpretation of the findings.
  6. The findings are compared with relevant previous studies.
  7. Similarities and differences with previous research are adequately explained.
  8. The scientific, technological, or practical contribution of the research is clearly demonstrated.

 

4.7 Conclusion

Reviewers should assess whether:

  1. The conclusions are supported by the research results.
  2. The conclusions address the research objectives.
  3. The conclusions are concise and consistent with the findings.
  4. Research limitations are appropriately stated when relevant.
  5. Recommendations or directions for future research are provided when appropriate.

 

4.8 References

Reviewers should evaluate whether:

  1. References are relevant to the research topic.
  2. The references are sufficiently current and include appropriate recent literature.
  3. Important previous studies have been appropriately cited.
  4. Citations and references follow the IEEE Reference Style required by Jurnal Ampere.
  5. References are consistently formatted.
  6. DOI information is included where available.
  7. The references adequately support the statements and arguments presented in the manuscript.

 

4.9 Language and Presentation

Reviewers should assess whether:

  1. The manuscript is logically organized.
  2. The scientific language is clear and concise.
  3. Grammar and terminology are appropriate.
  4. Technical terms are used consistently.
  5. Figures and tables are readable and properly numbered.
  6. Equations and mathematical expressions are appropriately presented.
  7. The manuscript follows the journal's formatting and writing requirements.

 

  1. Ethical and Technical Concerns

Reviewers should inform the editor if they identify concerns such as:

  1. Suspected plagiarism or substantial text similarity.
  2. Duplicate or redundant publication.
  3. Possible fabrication or falsification of data.
  4. Inappropriate manipulation or presentation of data.
  5. Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  6. Ethical concerns related to research involving human participants, animals, or other regulated subjects, where applicable.
  7. Serious methodological problems that may affect the validity of the research findings.

 

Reviewers should not make accusations directly to the authors. Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor through the review system.

 

  1. Reviewer Comments

Reviewers are encouraged to provide comments that are:

  1. Constructive and professional.
  2. Specific and supported by scientific reasoning.
  3. Clearly related to the manuscript.
  4. Helpful to authors in improving the quality of the manuscript.

 

Where possible, reviewers should distinguish between major issues that affect the scientific validity of the manuscript and minor issues such as language, formatting, typographical errors, or presentation.

Reviewers should avoid comments that are offensive, personal, discriminatory, or unrelated to the scientific quality of the manuscript.

 

  1. Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the evaluation, reviewers should recommend one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is scientifically sound and requires no substantial revision.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is generally acceptable but requires limited revisions before publication.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revisions in methodology, analysis, discussion, presentation, or other important aspects before it can be considered for publication.

Reject

The manuscript has fundamental scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope-related problems that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor. The reviewer's recommendation is an important consideration in the editorial decision-making process but does not determine the final decision independently.

 

  1. Final Remarks

Jurnal Ampere greatly appreciates the time, expertise, and commitment contributed by its reviewers.

Through a fair, objective, confidential, and professional peer-review process, reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and reputation of the journal while supporting the advancement of research in Electrical Engineering and related fields.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to Jurnal Ampere.