REVIEWER ETHICS
Reviewer ethics is a set of Professional Standards and moral principles that guide the behavior of individuals reviewing manuscripts, proposals, or other scientific works. generally in academic, scientific, or publishing contexts. Ethical review makers are critical to maintaining the integrity, fairness, and quality of the peer review process.
Here are the main Ethics for review :
- Confidentiality
Reviewers are obliged to consider the manuscript as a confidential document. They are not allowed to share, discuss, or use the contents of the manuscript for personal gain or research purposes before the manuscript is published.
- Objectivity and Fairness
The review needs to be done fairly, without prejudices or personal opinions that are not related to the quality of the work. Criticism given should be constructive, professional, and does not contain hate or hostility.
- Conflict of Interest
Reviewers are required to mention all conflicts of interest, including financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal relationships with authors. If there is a conflict, the reviewer should refuse to review the article.
- Anonymity (in Double-blind Reviews)
In a double-blind peer review process, the identity of the author and reviewer is unknown to interested parties. Reviewers are not allowed to seek to know the identity of the author or directly disclose it.
- Competence
Reviewers should only accept assignments if they meet the criteria for evaluating the content of the manuscript. If they are unsure, they should notify the editor and decline the assignment.
- Timeliness
The reviewer is obliged to respond and complete his review within the agreed time frame. If unable to meet the deadline, they should immediately notify the editor.
- Proper Use of Work
Reviewers are not allowed to copy or use ideas or data carelessly in the manuscript they are reviewing.
- Suggestions for Improvement
Provide clear, evidence-based advice to help authors improve the quality of their work.
REVIEWER ETHICS
1. Work objectively as a reviewer who is competent in their field.
2. Transparent, has integrity and upholds the ethical and moral values of reviewers.
3. Carry out the duties and responsibilities of reviewers based on existing regulations.
4. Can be trusted and guarantees the confidentiality of every article reviewed.
5. Be consistent in checking articles according to your competencies.
6. Follow the systematic process of institutional publication so that all processes are directly recorded, based on confidentiality (classified), have the characteristics of openness (transparency), traceability (traceability), consistency (consistency), fairness (fairness) and timeliness (timeliness)
7. Do not take advantage of information obtained through the review process carried out.
TEAM REVIEWER
| NO | NAME | INSTITUTIONS | COUNTRY OF ORIGIN | ID SCOPUS |
| 1 | Associate Professor Dr Shahsuzan Zakaria | University Teknologi MARA | Malaysia | 57191246918 |
| 2 | Dr Norzitah Abdul Karim | University Teknologi MARA | Malaysia | 55607184300 |
| 3 | Dr. Nurul Syifaa Mohd Shakil | University Teknologi MARA | Malaysia | |
| 4 | Assoc. Prof. Dr. Amirul Afif Muhamat | University Teknologi MARA | Malaysia | 55143970600 |
| 5 | Dr. Ade Gunawan, SE., M.Si | Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara | Indonesia | 58069992100 |
| 6 | Dr. Eko Wahyu Nugrahadi, M.Si | Universitas Negeri Medan | Indonesia | 57211202309 |
| 7 | Dr. Muhammad Fitri Rahmadana, SE., M.Si | Universitas Negeri Medan | Indonesia | |
| 8 | Dr. Sri Rezeki, SE., M.Si | Universitas Negeri Medan | Indonesia | 57210400995 |
| 9 | Hommy Dorthy Ellyany Sinaga, ST., MM | Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi Eka Prasetya | Indonesia | 57205064832 |
