Reviewer Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Public Administration (DiA) will go through a blind review process. The reviewer is tasked with conducting a review that includes analysis and assessment of the acceptability of the manuscript to be published in the Journal of Public Administration (DiA). Reviewers should consider the following points before conducting their review:
1. Does the manuscript you ask for review match your expertise?
If the article does not quite fit your area of expertise, please notify the Editorial Secretary.
2. Do you have time to review the manuscript?
The review process must be completed within 6 weeks of the manuscript being submitted. If you do not agree with these terms and need more time to review, please contact the Editorial Secretary.
3. Is there a conflict of interest with the manuscript?
If you have a conflict of interest with the manuscript, please contact the Editorial Secretary
4. Is there any indication of plagiarism in the manuscript?
If you suspect any indication of plagiarism in the manuscript, please contact the Editorial Secretary immediately.

Review Process:
1. Title: Does it describe the script clearly?
2. Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the manuscript?
3. Introduction: The introduction should contain general background and research questions or hypotheses. The literature review should be included in the introduction.
4. Does the manuscript meet the required journal writing guidelines?

Contents:
1. If the issue relating to a previously reviewed manuscript has been published, is the manuscript sufficient to warrant publication?
2. Does the manuscript contain novelty, in-depth knowledge, and points of interest to warrant publication?
3. Does the text contribute to the development of science and knowledge?
4. Are the main theories or references used in line with the research?

Method:
1. Does the author accurately describe how the data were collected?
2. Does the article answer the questions posed in the research?
3. Was the new method used? If there is a new method, is it explained in detail?

Results and Discussion:
The results should explain the authors' findings. This section should be clearly written in a logical order. The reviewer needs to consider whether a proper analysis has been carried out.

Conclusion:
The conclusion should contain recommendations and a summary of the research. The summary must have examples of answers that are in accordance with the research objectives or findings obtained. The summary should not contain repetition of the results of the research or discussion. The recommendations given must be correlated with the concept of the research being carried out or suggestions for improvement of the research.

Tables and Figures:
The tables and figures presented must be in accordance with the contents of the article and must have clear reference sources (such as books, journals, websites, or other references)

Reference:
Please ensure that any references cited in the text are listed in the reference list using the American Psychological Association (APA) style. References used must be published within the last 10 years, consisting of 80% of journal articles and 20% of books, theses, or other relevant publications.

Writing style:
Please write your text in good English which is interesting to read and easy to understand.

Final Review:
1. The manuscript review assessment must be written in the Review Form sent by the Editorial Secretary.
2. Reviewers are required to fill in the table marked with an asterisk.
3. At the end of the review, the reviewer must provide one of the following recommendations:
A. Accepted; means that the manuscript can be accepted for publication
B. Received with minor revisions; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication after revision in response to reviewer worries
C. Received with major revisions; means that substantive deficiencies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and paragraph rewriting, need to be revised
D. Rejected; means that the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication or the review given is related to a very basic problem
4. After filling out the review form, please fill in the identity of the reviewer in the appropriate field.