A. Considerations Before Reviewing Manuscripts

Before reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following:

• Reviewers are expected to be familiar with and understand the style guidelines for journal publication and the journal writing format provided in the template.

• Please read the title and abstract of the submitted manuscript so that you can determine if it aligns with your area of expertise.

• Does the submitted manuscript align with your field of knowledge? If you receive a manuscript covering a topic outside your expertise, please promptly inform the editor and recommend alternative reviewers from the journal review team (if available).

• Do you have the time to review this paper? The review process should be completed within a maximum of 2 weeks. Whether you agree or disagree, please inform the editor as soon as possible, or propose alternative reviewers. If you encounter serious issues during the manuscript review process, please contact the editor promptly to discuss them.

• Is there a potential conflict of interest? If there is a conflict due to competition, collaboration, or other relationships with institutions or companies involved in the publication, reviewers are not allowed to evaluate the manuscript. However, a conflict of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, as long as you disclose all conflicts to the editor before the review. If you have questions about potential conflicts of interest, feel free to contact the editorial office.

• Please read the entire manuscript so that you can build an overall impression and identify findings from the study.

• Reviews should be conducted objectively.

• Reviewers are not allowed to criticize the author's personality and are not allowed to make defamatory comments about the author's personality.

• Review the article's writing style. The writing style should be concise, clear, and correct. Ask the following questions to evaluate the writing style of the reviewed article: Is the language clear and unambiguous? Does excessive jargon interfere with the ability to make arguments? Are there overly verbose sections? Can ideas be expressed in a simpler way?

• Reviewers must express their opinions clearly with arguments and supporting references.

• Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of materials and data in the reviewed article and are not allowed to use data from the manuscript for personal gain.

B. Writing Review of Evaluation Results

• Provide an assessment in the review form provided on the journal's website. Evaluation aspects include the originality of the manuscript, contribution to scientific studies, quality of analysis, and research depth. Evaluation components that can be given include: (1 = Excellent); (2 = Good); (3 = Adequate); (4 = Insufficient).

• Record your correction notes and suggestions on the manuscript by blocking words/sentences to be commented on (notes), then click the Review menu in Microsoft Word, select "New Comment," and type the notes or comments to be given. After completing, save the file to be sent back to the editor via the journal's website.

• After corrections in Microsoft Word are complete and saved, please copy these comments and paste them in the comments column of the Review form provided on the journal's website.

• Additional Comments (Please provide advice to the author). Please provide additional comments and suggestions to the author (if any) regarding shortcomings in the manuscript. If the reviewer feels there are still comments and suggestions to be made regarding the manuscript, additional comments from the reviewer are required for the quality of the article to be published in this journal. Additional comment columns have been provided in the review form.

• Plagiarism, if you suspect that this article is largely plagiarized from another author, inform the editor in detail so that the editor can identify potential plagiarism in the manuscript; Fraud: Fraud categories are very difficult to detect, but if you suspect that the results in the article are not correct, inform the editor.

C. Content of the Manuscript to be Assessed

The following are content elements of the manuscript that should be assessed by reviewers:

• Overall Comments: Is this article original, showing innovation or new contributions, and has significant importance for the development of knowledge in the field? Does the article have an appropriate writing structure (following the AJIPKM journal writing guidelines), and does it have a deep discussion and good linguistic aspects?

• Abstract: Does the abstract contain a complete and structured summary, starting from a brief background, objectives, methods, service results, and conclusions? Is the word count suitable for journal requirements? Is the abstract written in both English and Indonesian?

• Introduction: Is the introduction written effectively, clearly, and well-organized? Does the introduction provide a general background to the issue? Does the introduction include reasons why this community service activity needs to be conducted? Does the introduction include a summary of previous relevant literature related to the issue to be addressed in the article? Does the introduction state the objectives of conducting community service activities? Is the introduction enriched with scholarly articles from the last 10 years?

• Research Method (Method): Does the implementation method of this community service activity contain a clear and concise description of the method and approach of service, as well as the location and time of the service activity? Does the author include relevant references regarding the research methods used?

• Discussion: Is the discussion clearly discussed in the context of community service activities? Provide suggestions and corrections for improvements in line with the data and analysis presented by the author. Then provide corrections regarding the tables, images, and schemes presented in the discussion. Write comments and suggestions regarding manuscript improvements briefly, clearly, and precisely. Are supporting data needed?

• Tables and Figures a. Are they in line with the referenced explanations by displaying easily interpretable and understandable data for readers? b. Are they in line with the writing format?

• Conclusion: Is the conclusion written by the author clear enough and answers the objectives of conducting community service activities? Are the conclusions outlined by the author supported by sufficient research data and analysis? Are there any excessive sentences or conclusions? It should be noted that the Conclusion is very different from the Abstract.

• References: Are all citations in the text of the article listed in the references, and conversely, are those listed in the references cited in the article text? Are the references written correctly and consistently according to the citation style established by the journal? Does the number of references used comply with the requirements set by the journal? The recommended number of references is at least 10, with 70% of the total references being scholarly articles published within the last 10 years.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

Confidential comments to the editor involve remarks regarding the novelty and significance of the manuscript, as well as recommendations on whether the manuscript is worthy of publication or not.

D. Decision

In this section, the reviewer must make a decision regarding the status of the evaluated manuscript. There are four decisions that can be made by the reviewer, including:

• Minor Revision;
• Moderate Revision;
• Major Revision; or
• Rejection.