Reviewer

Reviewers contribute to maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of NEWTON: Networking and Information Technology. Through independent, objective, and constructive assessment, reviewers help editors make informed publication decisions and assist authors in improving the clarity, rigor, and relevance of their manuscripts.

Reviewers should evaluate submissions within their areas of expertise and provide clear, evidence-based comments. Criticism should address the research and its presentation rather than the authors personally.

Acceptance of Review Invitations

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider whether they have the relevant expertise, can complete the assessment within the requested timeframe, and have any conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Reviewers who cannot complete a review or require additional time should notify the editorial office promptly. Manuscripts must not be assigned to another person without prior authorization from the editor.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, or discuss a manuscript or its supporting materials with unauthorized individuals. Unpublished information, methods, and findings must not be used for personal advantage or incorporated into the reviewer’s own work.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential submission materials to public generative artificial intelligence tools or other third-party services without explicit editorial authorization and appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the following aspects, as applicable to the manuscript type:

Relevance to the journal’s scope
The manuscript addresses a topic relevant to computer networking, information technology, or closely related applications.

Originality and contribution

The study clearly explains its contribution and distinguishes its findings, methods, or system design from existing work.

Research objectives and literature

The research problem and objectives are clearly defined, and the literature review provides relevant and sufficient context.

Methodological rigor

The research design, implementation procedures, data collection, and analytical methods are appropriate and sufficiently described.

Evaluation and reproducibility

Experiments, testing procedures, datasets, system configurations, and evaluation metrics are reported in enough detail to support assessment and, where feasible, reproduction.

Results and discussion

Results are presented clearly and interpreted accurately. Comparisons, conclusions, and claims are supported by evidence, and important limitations are acknowledged.

Presentation and references

The manuscript is logically organized, uses clear academic language, and includes appropriate tables, figures, and references.

For system-development papers, reviewers should assess whether the evaluation demonstrates that the proposed system meets its stated objectives. For machine-learning studies, relevant considerations include data quality, validation procedures, potential data leakage, baseline comparisons, and the suitability of performance metrics.

Constructive Review Reports

A review report should briefly summarize the manuscript’s contribution, identify its principal strengths and weaknesses, and provide specific suggestions for improvement. Reviewers should distinguish issues that affect the validity of the work from minor presentation concerns.

Comments intended for authors should be professional and actionable. Confidential comments to the editor may address sensitive matters, but substantive scientific criticisms should ordinarily also appear in the comments provided to authors.

Reviewers must not request citations to their own work or that of others unless those references are genuinely relevant and necessary.

Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should disclose any professional, financial, institutional, or personal relationship that could influence—or reasonably appear to influence—their assessment. If a conflict becomes apparent after acceptance of the invitation, the reviewer should contact the editor before continuing.

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, or other ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor with supporting details. Reviewers should not contact authors directly or independently investigate allegations.

Review Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive changes.

Minor revision: Limited changes are needed, and the main findings remain adequately supported.

Major revision: Substantial improvements or clarification are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Reject: The manuscript has fundamental weaknesses, falls outside the journal’s scope, or does not provide a sufficient contribution.

Recommendations should be consistent with the issues identified in the review report. The final publication decision rests with the editor, who considers reviewer comments, author responses, and the journal’s editorial policies.

Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

The journal values the time and expertise contributed by reviewers. Any public acknowledgment of individual reviewers will be made with their consent and without compromising the confidentiality of the review process.

Reviewer

SINTA

submission

menu

template

contoh_artikel

statistik_pengunjung

video