{"id":780,"date":"2026-02-07T10:10:47","date_gmt":"2026-02-07T10:10:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wisdom-academia.my\/jopi\/?page_id=780"},"modified":"2026-03-03T16:07:10","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T16:07:10","slug":"code-of-ethics-for-reviewers","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/wisdom-academia.my\/jopi\/code-of-ethics-for-reviewers\/","title":{"rendered":"JoPI: Code of Ethics for Reviewers"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

CURRENT ISSUE<\/strong>
Volume 1, May 2026<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tView this Issue<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Editor in Chef<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

PROFESSOR DR. AHMAD SUNAWARI LONG
\ne-Mail: jopi@wisdom-academia.my<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Code of Ethic for Reviewers<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

1. Reciprocity<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Reviewing for journals is a professional activity that provides value for the field as a whole, and should be encouraged. Authors who submit manuscripts to The Journal are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review manuscripts for The Journal.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

2. Double-Blind Peer-Review<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The Journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, whereby the Authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of knowledge. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by the Editor-in-Chief to provide assessment of a written research manuscript, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for The Journal.<\/p>

Authors should respect the confidentiality of the review process and should not reveal themselves to Reviewers, and vice versa. Reviewers should avoid doing or saying anything that could identify them to the Authors of a manuscript they are reviewing or reviewed.<\/p>

Regular reviewers selected for The Journal should meet minimum standards regarding their background in the research field, publication of articles and formal training.<\/p>

Reviewers are experts in the scientific topic addressed in the manuscripts they review, and are selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. Individuals who have a major competing interest in the subject of the manuscript are not appointed as reviewers for such manuscript.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

3. Quality of Review<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Manuscripts received by The Journal will be evaluated by the Editorial board that will judge whether a manuscript is of potential interest to the readers of The Journal. Manuscripts that are of interest, formatted according to the guideline for Authors and presented fairly well are sent for review. Typically, one or two reviewers are employed. Manuscript may be sent to other specialized experts such as on statistics or a particular technique where a scientist in that particular technique is needed to evaluate it.<\/p>

Reviewers are assessed on the quality of review and other performance characteristics by the Editor-in-Chief to assure optimal journal quality and performance. These ratings should also contribute to decisions on reappointment to The Journal\u2019s Editorial Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers are available to the Editor-in- Chief but otherwise kept confidential.<\/p>

Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. A good review includes the following inputs from the reviewers:<\/p>