Review Guidelines

Participation in the peer-review process is absolutely essential to the success and reputation of the journal. Reviewers along with the editors determine which work is of quality and significance. Due to extensive readership, the research and scholarship presented will ultimately have an impact on literacy in classrooms, nationally and internationally. As a peer reviewer, the task of the reviewer is to provide a constructive, critical analysis of the manuscript content, to collaborate with the general editors and the subject editors in checking/ratifying whether the work is of high scientific value and complies with this journal’s standards of excellence in order to be accepted and edited. Once you become one of our reviewers, your name will be listed on the journal’s webpage afterward and the confirmation letter will be sent to you as you request. The editorial board welcomes you to join us to be a Reviewer.

The reviewers will provide a general assessment of the impact priority remarking on the probability of the article having a strong and lasting influence on the research areas that interest the journal.

Subject. For the central theme of the article to be relevant and of scientific value, it must be both specific and of broader interest to the international scientific community.

Style. The reviewer’s report of the critical evaluation of the manuscript must be written in an objective style using quotes directly from the text submitted or citing references of interest in order to support his/her arguments. Bibliographic references (APA norms apply, with citations in the text matching the reference in the list at the end of the text).

Originality. Originality and suitability are essential criteria for the manuscript to be selected for our journal.

Structure. The manuscripts should include the main elements of a scientific paper: summary/abstract, introduction, method, results and discussion, and conclusions.

Reviewers should:

1. Only accept invitations to review work that is relevant to their own expertise and specialty.

2. Review submitted work in a responsible, impartial, and timely manner.

3. Report any suspected ethical misconduct as part of a thorough and honest review of the work.

4. Avoid the use of unnecessarily inflammatory or offensive language in their appraisal of the work.

5. Seek advice from the editor if anything is unclear at the time of invitation.

6. Accept the commitment to review future versions of the work and provide 'follow up' advice to the editor(s), if requested.

7. Remain in good communication with both the publisher and the editor.


  1. Have a strong interest in a scholarly journal.
  2. Possess a doctoral degree in the specific subject related closely to the journal.
  3. Hold a job at a university or academic organization, in a teaching or research position.
  4. Be fluent in academic and professional English.
  5. Work quickly and accurately to tight deadlines.

The categories that Jurnal Akademika Kimia (JAK) uses to classify a reviewed manuscript are:

  1. Accept: The article is suitable for publication in its present form.
  2. Revision Required: Any required changes are minor; the editor will verify that the author made the recommended changes.
  3. Resubmit for Review: The article is acceptable for publication provided that significant changes are made, as indicated by the comments below. The revision should be re-reviewed.
  4. Resubmit for Elsewhere: The article is better suited for another journal.
  5. Decline Submission: This article is not suitable for publication in JAK.