Reviewer

Reviewers

Acknowledgement of subject experts supporting independent scholarly evaluation.

The reviewer list should represent individuals who have formally served or are currently appointed as peer reviewers. Reviewer selection for a specific manuscript is based on expertise, independence, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest.

1Reviewer Panel

2Reviewer Responsibilities

• Maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and editorial correspondence.
• Disclose any financial, professional, personal, institutional, or intellectual conflict of interest before accepting an assignment.
• Provide objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive comments within the agreed timeframe.
• Avoid coercive citation requests and never use unpublished information for personal advantage.
• Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or other ethical concerns.
• Complete the scientific assessment independently. Confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded to public generative-AI services.

3Reviewer Recognition and Transparency

The journal may acknowledge reviewers through this public page without revealing which reviewer evaluated a particular manuscript under the double-anonymous process. Reviewer identities associated with individual submissions remain confidential unless the journal has formally adopted an open-review model for that content.

Profile links: Scopus and SINTA identifiers shown on this page are linked directly to the corresponding public author profiles to support transparent verification of reviewer expertise.

Data-quality note: the previous public page duplicated Harif Amali Rivai’s Scopus ID for Syahmardi Yacob. The corrected Scopus Author ID for Syahmardi Yacob is 57196085656. No identifier is displayed for a reviewer unless it can be reasonably verified from public scholarly records.

Reviewer names, affiliations, and identifiers should be verified periodically; outdated affiliations should be corrected without rewriting the historical peer-review record.