Peer Review Process

Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in providing constructive feedback by evaluating manuscripts relevant to their areas of expertise. They are expected to identify strengths and weaknesses, suggest improvements, and assess the manuscript's relevance and originality.

Before Reviewing

Expertise: Ensure that the manuscript aligns with your field of expertise. If it does not, please inform the editor and recommend an alternative reviewer.
Timeframe: Aim to complete your review within two weeks. If you require additional time or are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the editor promptly.
Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor prior to commencing the review.

Review Process

Title and Abstract:

Title: Does it accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?
Abstract: Does it provide a concise and accurate summary of the article?

Introduction:

Context and Objectives: Does the introduction clearly explain the research background and articulate the research question, hypothesis, and methods?

Content Evaluation:

Originality and Plagiarism: Assess the manuscript for originality and check for potential plagiarism using tools such as Scopus for literature searches.
Novelty and Contribution: Is the manuscript innovative, thorough, and relevant? Does it contribute to the existing body of knowledge in the field and align with the journal's standards?
Scope: Is the manuscript consistent with the aims of the journal?

Methods:

Detail and Accuracy: Are the data collection methods, theoretical foundations, and references adequately detailed? Is there sufficient information for replication?
New Methods: Are any novel methodologies clearly explained? Is the sampling appropriate, and are the tools and materials well-described?

Results:

Clarity and Logic: Are the findings presented in a clear and logical manner? Was appropriate analysis conducted using suitable statistical methods?

Discussion and Conclusion:

Support and Comparison: Are the claims substantiated by the results? Does the author compare the findings with previous studies? Are the conclusions reasonable, and do they propose future research directions?

Tables and Figures:

Relevance and Clarity: Do tables and figures effectively illustrate the data and enhance understanding?

Perspective:

Reviewers should provide unique insights related to land and legal issues, including land ownership, land use rights, land certification, land dispute resolution, and relevant policies and regulations.

Original Research:

Original Data and Testing: The manuscript must present new data that offers innovative approaches to enhance systems, processes, and the accuracy of tools utilized in land management and legal practices.
Policy Research and Observational Analysis: The manuscript should elucidate the feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation of research findings, focusing on topics such as land mapping, land registration, certificate renewal, and the efficacy of land and legal policies.

Practical Application (Case Studies):

Papers should depict real-life scenarios regarding future challenges in land management and legal practices. This may include issues such as land ownership conflicts, agrarian reform, dispute resolution through mediation or litigation, and the implications of new regulations on land practices. Conclusions should emphasize the lessons learned from these cases.

References

First-Person Accounts (Interviews)
Book Reviews
Technology Insights (Product Reviews)
Final Reviews

Confidentiality

All review outcomes are confidential. If you wish to discuss the manuscript with colleagues, please inform the editor beforehand. Do not directly contact the authors.

Ethical Issues

Plagiarism: If you suspect that the manuscript is largely plagiarized from another source, please inform the editor with detailed observations.
Fraud: While detecting fraud can be challenging, if you suspect that the results presented are not genuine, please notify the editor.

Review Completion

Submit your review to the editorial office by the specified deadline. Your recommendations will be taken into account by the editor when making the final decision, and your honest feedback is highly valued.