Reviewer Guidelines

Jurnal Lingkungan Binaan Indonesia (JLBI) adapts the standards of publication ethics as stated in the Core Practices of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). These include the policies regarding authorship and contributorship, the procedure for handling allegations of misconduct, handling of complaints and appeals, handling of conflicts of interests/competing interests, policies on data and reproducibility, ethical oversight, intellectual property, AI use, journal management, peer-review process, and post-publication discussions and corrections.

Duties and Responsibilities

The duties and responsibilities of a reviewer are as follows:

Editorial Partnership: Reviewers serve as partners to the editorial team, assisting editors in making decisions that guarantee the quality of submitted manuscripts.
Improving Manuscript Quality: Reviewers assist authors in enhancing the quality of their work based on expertise aligned with the manuscript’s scope and topic.
Timeliness: Reviewers accept assignments from the editorial team to evaluate manuscripts and deliver review reports within the agreed timeframe.
Declining Assignments & Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers have the right to decline a review request due to an unaligned field of expertise, time constraints, or potential conflicts of interest regarding the authors or manuscript content.
Confidentiality & AI Policy: Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding author identity, manuscript content, and evaluation reports. Reviewers are prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts, titles, abstracts, or any part of the text into unvetted Generative AI tools or online platforms, as doing so violates manuscript privacy, copyright, and confidentiality policies.
Constructive Encouragement: Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback in a supportive tone to motivate authors to improve their work.
Objectivity and Professionalism: Reviews must be conducted objectively using polite language. Criticism must be supported by clear arguments and actionable guidance for revisions.
Re-evaluation: Reviewers may be requested to review revised manuscripts to ensure all criteria are met and the work delivers a meaningful contribution.
Guideline Compliance: Manuscripts must be evaluated according to the standards outlined in the JLBI Author Guidelines.
Reporting: Reviewers must submit all comments, section scores, and final recommendations directly to the editorial team via the journal system.

Review Process & Evaluation Criteria

When evaluating an article, please consider and rate each of the following sections on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent):

1. General Formatting

Criterion: Orderliness and adherence to the journal template.
Scoring (1–5): Higher scores reflect strict compliance with the template layout and guidelines. Note that author details are anonymized to ensure a double-blind peer review process.
Comments: Use the comment box to specify required formatting fixes across the manuscript or in specific sections.

2. Article Title

Criterion: Accuracy of the title in representing the study's core contents.
Scoring (1–5): Higher scores reflect novelty, completeness of information, and proper language mechanics.
Comments: Provide comments if the title requires revision, or suggest alternative titles where applicable.

3. Abstract

Criterion: Structure, clarity, and readability of the abstract.
Content Checklist: The abstract should concisely cover background, state of the art, problem statement, objective, methodology, and key findings (1–2 sentences each).
Scoring (1–5): Higher scores indicate an abstract that provides a comprehensive overview of the study.
Comments: Detail any required abstract improvements or specific recommendations.

INTRODUCTION SECTION

The introduction must summarize the full context of the work: Background, State of the Art, Problem Statement, and Objectives.

4. Research Background: States the phenomenon or issue grounding the research, demonstrating its relevance to the research goal.
- Scoring (1–5): Higher scores are awarded when background claims are supported by reliable, cited data sources.
5. State of the Art: Reviews current knowledge referencing relevant literature.
- Scoring (1–5): Higher scores indicate clear novelty and positioning of the research within existing studies.
6. Problem Statement: Clarity of the problem and its alignment with the background and objectives.
- Scoring (1–5): Higher scores reflect a clearly stated problem directly linked to the research goals.
7. Research Objectives: Clarity of the objectives and their alignment with the title and problem.
- Scoring (1–5): Higher scores are awarded for well-defined, coherent objectives.

BODY SECTION

Evaluates accurate data reporting, theoretical grounding, methodology precision, reproducibility, novelty, sampling methods, tool/material descriptions, and data acquisition timing/type.

8. Research Methodology: Details of data collection and analytical methods. Lower scores apply to papers lacking empirical data or leaning purely on opinion.
- Scoring (1–5): Rate the clarity, appropriateness, and detail of the research design.
9. Analysis Results: Validity and reliability of the analytical outputs, including cross-comparison with existing literature.
- Scoring (1–5): Higher scores are awarded when analytical results are thoroughly evaluated against comparative studies.
10. Discussion & Interpretation: Quality of synthesis and interpretation of results (referencing literature, logical reasoning, and mapping novelty).
- Scoring (1–5): Higher scores reflect deep discussion that fosters new insights in the field.

CLOSING SECTION

11. Conclusion: Concise summary of findings and their relevance to the research objectives.
- Scoring (1–5): Higher scores are given to concise conclusions that directly answer the research questions without introducing new interpretations.
12. References: Sufficiency and quality of cited sources.
- Scoring Scale: Divide the total number of valid references by 5 (e.g., 12 references = score 2; 25+ references = maximum score 5).

MISCELLANEOUS

13. Academic Language & Mechanics: Grammar, sentence structure (Subject-Predicate-Object clarity), and overall readability.
- Scoring (1–5): Rate the clarity and flow of the academic prose.
14. Tables and Figures: Visual clarity, proper numbering, complete captions, and explicit in-text citations/discussion.
- Scoring (1–5): Higher scores reflect high-resolution visuals that directly support the text and are explicitly referenced.

ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Confidentiality: All review evaluations and manuscript details remain strictly confidential.
Generative AI Restriction: Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or part of them into AI tools or public engines for summarizing, editing, or evaluating to protect IP and privacy.
Consultations: If you need to consult a colleague regarding a review, please notify the editor in advance.
Direct Contact: Do not contact the authors directly under any circumstances.
Ethical Misconduct Concerns: If you suspect plagiarism (partial or full), data fabrication/falsification, or ungrounded results, notify the editorial team immediately.
Role of Recommendations: Reviewer recommendations are vital inputs that inform the editor's final decision.
Separation of Feedback: When writing comments, clearly separate notes intended solely for the Editor from feedback meant for the Author(s).
Editorial Support: The editorial team remains fully accessible should you have any questions or encounter any issues during the review process.