Reviewer Guidelines

Jurnal FisTa: Fisika dan Terapannya recognizes the essential role of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publications. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and scientifically sound evaluations of manuscripts in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and publication ethics.

The journal implements a double-blind peer review system. Reviewers are responsible for evaluating the scientific quality of manuscripts while maintaining confidentiality, independence, and professional integrity throughout the review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to conduct manuscript evaluations professionally, impartially, and within their areas of expertise. Their assessments should contribute to improving the scientific quality and clarity of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers should:

Evaluate manuscripts based on scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, and relevance to the journal's scope.
Provide constructive comments supported by appropriate scientific reasoning.
Identify significant methodological limitations, inconsistencies, or unsupported conclusions.
Recommend relevant scientific references when necessary.
Maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and editorial information.
Declare potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
Inform the editor of suspected research or publication misconduct.
Complete the review within the agreed timeframe or promptly notify the editor if additional time is required.

Acceptance of Review Invitations

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript falls within their field of expertise and whether they can complete the evaluation within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers who lack the necessary expertise, have insufficient time, or identify potential conflicts of interest should decline the invitation and inform the editor promptly.

Scientific Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to the nature and objectives of the research, including experimental, theoretical, computational, modeling, and applied physics studies.

The evaluation should consider the following aspects:

Title and Abstract: Clarity, accuracy, and consistency with the research content.
Introduction: Relevance of the scientific background, research problem, objectives, literature review, and identification of the research gap.
Originality and Contribution: Scientific novelty, relevance, and contribution to the development of physics or its applications.
Research Methods: Appropriateness, completeness, validity, and reproducibility of the methodology.
Results and Discussion: Reliability of the findings, quality of data presentation, depth of scientific interpretation, and comparison with previous studies.
Conclusions: Consistency with the research objectives and evidence presented in the manuscript.
References: Relevance, adequacy, accuracy, and appropriate citation of scientific literature.
Scientific Presentation: Clarity of language, organization, figures, tables, equations, and compliance with the journal's writing guidelines.

Reviewers should consider the scientific characteristics of each study and avoid requiring methods, analyses, or experiments that are not reasonably relevant to the research objectives.

Preparation of Review Reports

Review reports should provide a clear and balanced assessment of the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring improvement.

Comments should be specific, constructive, and supported by scientific reasoning. Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between essential revisions that affect scientific validity and minor recommendations related to presentation or writing.

Reviewers should avoid inappropriate language, personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, or unsupported judgments regarding the authors.

When recommending additional analyses, experiments, or references, reviewers should explain their scientific relevance and necessity.

Reviewer Recommendations

After completing their assessments, reviewers should provide an appropriate recommendation based on the scientific quality and readiness of the manuscript.

Recommendations may include:

Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the required scientific standards and is suitable for publication.
Revisions Required: The manuscript requires improvements that can be addressed through revision.
Resubmit for Review: Substantial scientific revisions are necessary before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Decline Submission: The manuscript has significant scientific, methodological, or ethical limitations that make it unsuitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection remains the responsibility of the authorized editor.

Confidentiality and Double-Blind Review

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, research findings, review reports, or editorial correspondence to unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers must not use unpublished research data, ideas, or findings for personal benefit or research purposes without appropriate authorization.

Reviewers should respect the anonymity of the double-blind review process and must not attempt to identify authors or contact them directly regarding the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationships that may compromise their independence or impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include close research collaborations, personal relationships, financial interests, professional competition, or other circumstances that could influence the review process.

Reviewers who identify relevant conflicts of interest must notify the editor before proceeding with the assessment.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must comply with the journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy when considering the use of AI-assisted technologies during manuscript evaluation.

Confidential manuscripts, figures, datasets, reviewer reports, and editorial information must not be uploaded to external AI platforms without prior editorial authorization and appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

Any permitted use of AI-assisted technologies must be disclosed to the handling editor. AI-generated evaluations must not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment or professional responsibility.

Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should inform the editor if they identify potential plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate data manipulation, or other suspected ethical violations.

Any concerns should be supported by relevant observations or evidence and communicated confidentially to the editorial team.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or publicly disclose suspected misconduct. The editorial team is responsible for determining appropriate follow-up procedures under the journal's publication ethics policies.

Review Submission and Documentation

Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations and recommendations through Open Journal Systems (OJS), following the instructions provided in the review assignment.

Review reports should be sufficiently detailed to support editorial decisions and assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

The journal maintains appropriate records of reviewer assignments, evaluation reports, and editorial correspondence in accordance with its peer review and confidentiality policies.

Ethical Guidelines and References

Jurnal FisTa: Fisika dan Terapannya follows relevant principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in maintaining the integrity, independence, confidentiality, and quality of peer review.

For further information, please refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the journal's Peer Review Process, and Publication Ethics.