Peer reviewers contribute to the scholarly quality, integrity, rigor, relevance, and credibility of Advances in Community Services Research (ACSR). Reviewers provide independent expert assessments to assist academic editors in evaluating manuscripts and to help authors strengthen methodological rigor, implementation transparency, scholarly interpretation, community relevance, and the substantive contribution of their work.

ACSR welcomes qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to its Aims & Scope, including community services, community engagement, community partnerships, service-learning, institutional and community collaboration, communication, management, economics, culture, education, law, social health, hospital management, religion in its social context, and related interdisciplinary social-science fields.

Reviews should be objective, constructive, confidential, independent, respectful, proportionate, and evidence-based. Reviewer recommendations inform academic editorial evaluation but remain advisory. Final scientific-editorial responsibility rests with the responsible academic editor and, where applicable, the Editor-in-Chief.

ACSR applies double-anonymous peer review. Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and/or community-service expertise.

Authors submit a Blinded Manuscript separately from the Title Page & Author Information Form. Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Reviewers must not attempt to identify anonymized authors or circumvent the confidentiality of the review process.

The normal scientific-editorial pathway is Submission → Editorial Screening → Independent Peer Review → Revision → Post-Revision Verification → Final Editorial Decision. Accepted manuscripts subsequently enter the applicable post-acceptance administration, copyediting, proofreading, production, metadata-verification, and publication processes.

ACSR maintains exactly two OJS editorial sections, each with distinct manuscript requirements and reviewer assessment instruments.

1. Article: This section accepts Research Paper and Literature Review Paper manuscripts. Both types use the Advances in Research Master Manuscript Template and the standard scholarly review form.

Research Paper: Original research using quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, experimental, quasi-experimental, longitudinal, cross-sectional, archival, computational, case-based, comparative, or other defensible original-research approaches.

Literature Review Paper: A rigorous scholarly review using an appropriately identified narrative, integrative, systematic, scoping, structured, bibliometric, meta-analytical, theory-oriented, concept-oriented, or other defensible literature-review approach that demonstrates meaningful critical synthesis and scholarly contribution.

2. Community Partnerships and Impacts: This section accepts Community Service Article manuscripts using the New ACSR Template Submission and the dedicated Community Partnerships and Impacts Review Form comprising 11 assessment components.

Manuscript-Type Principle: Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts according to their designated OJS section, applicable template, actual methodological or implementation design, supporting evidence, and intended contribution. Research techniques, analytical tools, and literature-review methods do not create additional OJS sections or independent manuscript categories.

The peer-review process includes initial editorial assessment, independent expert evaluation, manuscript revision where appropriate, and a final academic editorial decision. ACSR uses the double-anonymous model described above.

The reviewer's principal responsibility is to assess a manuscript's relevance, originality, scholarly or community-service contribution, theoretical or conceptual foundation, methodological or implementation rigor, evidence quality, analysis or evaluation, interpretation, research integrity, and compliance with the applicable ACSR manuscript requirements.

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should determine whether the manuscript falls sufficiently within their subject or methodological expertise, whether they can provide an independent and impartial assessment, whether material conflicts of interest exist, and whether they can complete the review within the timeframe requested by the Editorial Office.

Reviewers must also be able to comply with the journal's confidentiality, reviewer-ethics, scholarly-independence, and research-integrity requirements. Where expertise is insufficient, a conflict exists, or the requested timeframe cannot reasonably be met, the reviewer should decline the invitation or seek guidance from the responsible editor promptly.

Reviewers are not expected to function as copyeditors. Language, formatting, and citation-presentation issues should be identified when they affect scholarly understanding, but peer review should focus primarily on scientific validity, methodological rigor, evidence, research integrity, community-service relevance, originality, and substantive contribution.

Manuscripts under review are confidential scholarly materials. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, forward, or use unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, underlying data, research findings, community-participant information, review reports, editorial correspondence, or associated information for personal, professional, commercial, competitive, publication, or research advantage.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly, attempt to identify anonymized authors through internet searches or document metadata, disclose their own identities to circumvent double-anonymous review, or delegate review responsibilities without authorization from the responsible academic editor. Any proposed involvement of another individual must be disclosed and approved in advance.

Relevant financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, community-partnership, or personal conflicts of interest must be disclosed promptly. When uncertain whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, reviewers should explain the circumstances to the responsible editor and allow the editor to determine whether continued participation or reassignment is appropriate.

Generative AI and Confidentiality: Confidential manuscripts, manuscript extracts, unpublished data, identifiable community-participant information, author information, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative-AI systems or external automated services where confidentiality, privacy, copyright, intellectual-property protection, data security, or appropriate information handling cannot be assured.

Any proposed use of external AI-assisted services involving confidential manuscript material requires explicit journal authorization and appropriate confidentiality and data-protection safeguards. The availability of an AI tool does not constitute permission to upload confidential scholarly materials.

AI-assisted tools must not replace the reviewer's independent reading, critical analysis, methodological assessment, evaluation of community-service evidence, interpretation, or scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain accountable for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, integrity, and academic justification of their reports and recommendations.

Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution within the current ACSR Aims & Scope and satisfies the requirements of its designated editorial section. All fields explicitly recognized within the journal's social-science scope have equal scholarly standing. Community-service submissions must additionally demonstrate relevance to the designated Community Partnerships and Impacts section.

1. Scope Relevance: Does the manuscript address a substantive scholarly or community-service problem within the recognized ACSR scope? Is its purpose sufficiently connected to the relevant editorial section?

2. Originality & Contribution: Are the research problem, community need, knowledge or practice gap, objectives, novelty, originality, and intended scholarly, methodological, institutional, social, or community contribution clearly articulated and defensible?

3. Literature & Conceptual Foundation: Is the relevant literature appropriately selected, sufficiently current where necessary, critically examined, and logically integrated? Does it support the manuscript's conceptual foundation, research design, or community-service rationale?

4. Methodological or Implementation Rigor: Are the research, review, or community-service implementation methods appropriate to the objectives, sufficiently transparent, accurately reported, and capable of supporting the stated findings, outcomes, and conclusions?

5. Research & Publication Integrity: Are there credible concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, misleading manipulation, inappropriate authorship, fabricated references, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or unethical research or community-service practices?

6. Analysis, Evaluation & Interpretation: Are the research results, review synthesis, or community-service outcomes accurately analyzed or evaluated and meaningfully interpreted in relation to the objectives, relevant literature, context, and evidence?

7. Conclusions & Implications: Are the conclusions proportionate to the evidence? Are scholarly, methodological, institutional, social, practical, policy, or community implications substantiated rather than overstated?

8. Writing & Presentation: Is the manuscript coherent, understandable, logically structured, and written in appropriate academic English? Are tables, figures, references, citations, terminology, reported evidence, and arguments sufficiently accurate and consistent with the applicable section-specific requirements?

For a Research Paper submitted to the Article section, reviewers should determine whether the manuscript follows the applicable Advances in Research Master Manuscript Template and presents a coherent progression from scholarly problem identification to theoretical grounding, methodology, empirical evidence, interpretation, and conclusions.

Introduction: Does the manuscript establish a meaningful research problem, relevant context, state of the art, literature gap, research objectives or questions, novelty, significance, and intended contribution?

Review of Literature: Does the manuscript critically evaluate and synthesize relevant theories, concepts, and prior evidence? Is the theoretical or conceptual framework appropriate? Are the proposed relationships, hypotheses, or propositions justified where applicable?

Research Methodology: Does the manuscript accurately describe the research design, study context, population or units of analysis, sampling or case selection, data sources, measurements, analytical methods, validity or reliability considerations, and applicable research-ethics procedures? Can the actual methodology support the findings and conclusions?

Results and Discussion: The Research Paper structure contains distinct scholarly functions for reporting evidence and interpreting its meaning. Reviewers should evaluate both functions independently, even when they appear under a common principal heading.

4.1 Research Results: Are the empirical findings presented accurately, transparently, consistently, and with adequate supporting evidence? Are statistical, qualitative, case-based, comparative, computational, experimental, or other applicable analyses reported appropriately? Are there unsupported claims, material omissions, internal contradictions, or selective reporting concerns?

4.2 Discussion: Does the manuscript interpret the findings in relation to its conceptual foundation, previous research, social or institutional context, and stated contribution? Are agreements, contradictions, unexpected results, limitations, and relevant theoretical, managerial, organizational, social, or policy implications adequately discussed?

Conclusion: Does the manuscript answer its research objectives, synthesize its principal findings and contribution, acknowledge material limitations, identify relevant implications, and provide defensible future-research directions? Are conclusions consistent with the research design and available evidence?

Evaluation Principle: Research Methodology explains how the research was conducted; Research Results reports what the evidence shows; Discussion interprets the meaning and contribution of the findings; and Conclusion communicates what the study establishes. Reviewers should assess scientific adequacy rather than require unsupported procedures or unnecessary repetition.

For a Literature Review Paper submitted to the Article section, reviewers should evaluate the transparency and appropriateness of the declared review approach, adequacy and reliability of the literature base, rigor of the synthesis, significance of the interpretation, and originality and usefulness of the scholarly contribution.

Introduction: Does the review identify a meaningful scholarly problem, knowledge gap, review objective or question, and justified rationale? Is its intended contribution clear?

Review Methodology: Is the actual review design accurately identified and transparently described? Are literature sources, databases, search strategies, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, duplicate handling, analytical techniques, and synthesis methods reported where applicable to the review genuinely conducted?

Review Findings / Literature Synthesis: Does the manuscript move beyond descriptive listing to identify meaningful themes, concepts, theoretical perspectives, evidence patterns, debates, methodological developments, unresolved problems, or research gaps? Are the sources appropriate, credible, and traceable?

Discussion: Does the manuscript interpret its synthesis at a substantive scholarly level? Does it explain what the literature establishes, where contradictions or limitations remain, how the synthesis extends or challenges existing knowledge, and what theoretical, conceptual, methodological, institutional, social, or practical implications follow?

Conclusion: Does the review answer its objectives, synthesize the principal insights, explain originality and contribution, acknowledge relevant limitations, and provide a focused future-research agenda supported by the evidence?

Review-Methodology Integrity: A manuscript should not be treated as systematic, PRISMA-based, scoping, bibliometric, meta-analytical, or another specialized review merely because the corresponding label appears in the text. Reviewers should determine whether the actual methods, documentation, and evidence substantiate the claimed design.

Bibliometric and Mapping-Based Reviews: Bibliometric mapping, citation-network analysis, keyword co-occurrence analysis, publication trends, and other descriptive visualizations should support meaningful theoretical, conceptual, methodological, or substantive synthesis. Visual mapping alone does not establish an adequate Literature Review Paper contribution.

For a Community Service Article submitted to the Community Partnerships and Impacts section, reviewers must evaluate the manuscript against the designated New ACSR Template Submission and the dedicated Community Partnerships and Impacts Review Form.

The dedicated review form contains 11 assessment components. Reviewers must complete the applicable assessments in that form rather than substitute the standard Research Paper or Literature Review Paper review form.

Title and Abstract: Do the title and abstract accurately represent the community-service activities, intended objectives, implementation approach, principal outcomes, and supported implications? Are the claims proportionate to the evidence?

Introduction: Does the manuscript explain the community setting, identified problems or needs, relevant partners, implementation rationale, objectives, and intended community contribution?

Literature Review: Is the program supported by appropriate scholarly, conceptual, or practice-based literature? Does the discussion establish a credible basis for the selected community-service approach?

Implementation Method: Are the community-service activities and implementation stages described accurately and transparently? Are participants, partners, setting, procedures, resources, evaluation instruments, and relevant ethical or institutional permissions reported appropriately?

Results and Discussion: Does the manuscript present credible evidence of activities undertaken, community participation, implementation achievements, evaluation findings, and observed outcomes? Does the discussion connect the evidence with community needs, program objectives, and relevant literature?

Program Evaluation and Sustainability: Is the evaluation design appropriate to the program objectives? Are outcome indicators, limitations, follow-up arrangements, sustainability considerations, and potential continuation supported by documented evidence rather than assumptions?

Conclusion: Are the stated community-service outcomes, practical implications, limitations, and recommendations consistent with the actual activities and evidence?

Community Participation and Impact: Are the roles of community partners, stakeholders, participants, and collaborating institutions accurately represented? Are short-term outcomes distinguished from anticipated benefits and longer-term community impacts?

Ethics and Documentation: Where applicable, are community-partner permissions, participant consent, instrument permissions, photographic publication consent, data confidentiality, and institutional authorizations accurately documented?

Section-Specific Assessment Principle: The considerations above guide substantive review and do not replace, rename, or reduce the 11 assessment components of the official Community Partnerships and Impacts Review Form. Reviewers must use the actual form assigned through OJS.

ACSR uses section-specific review forms to ensure that manuscripts are assessed against relevant scholarly and reporting expectations.

Article: Research Paper and Literature Review Paper manuscripts are evaluated using the standard scholarly review form. Reviewers should adapt their assessment to the declared and genuinely performed research or literature-review methodology.

Community Partnerships and Impacts: Community Service Article manuscripts are evaluated using the dedicated 11-component Community Partnerships and Impacts Review Form. The assessment must recognize community implementation, engagement, program evaluation, evidence, practical outcomes, and section-specific publication requirements.

Each reviewer must independently evaluate the manuscript as a whole, including its substantive content, methodology or implementation, supporting evidence, ethics, interpretation, conclusions, citations, references, language, and compliance with the applicable journal requirements.

Reviewer assessments should remain independent even where multiple reviewers identify similar problems. Different reviewers may legitimately emphasize different concerns, reach different evaluations, or recommend different editorial outcomes. The responsible academic editor evaluates their reasoning and evidence rather than applying automatic majority voting.

A high-quality review should distinguish major scholarly, methodological, ethical, evidentiary, or community-service concerns from minor editorial corrections. Reviewers should explain why significant problems matter and provide clear, specific, constructive, and actionable recommendations where revision is feasible.

Personal remarks, discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, unjustified methodological demands, and requests unrelated to scholarly evaluation are inappropriate. Reviewers should assess the suitability and limitations of the methods actually used rather than automatically demand particular software, statistical procedures, theoretical models, or review protocols where another defensible approach adequately addresses the manuscript's objectives.

A reviewer report may be organized as Overall Assessment → Major Comments → Minor Comments → Recommendation, together with the required responses to the applicable OJS review form. Major Comments should identify substantive concerns, while Minor Comments should address clarity, terminology, citation presentation, formatting, and other non-substantive corrections.

Reviewer recommendations may be Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Reviewers should select the recommendation most consistent with the evidence-based assessment and explain the reasons supporting it. Recommendations should remain proportionate to the significance and correctability of the identified concerns.

Editorial Decision Authority: Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The responsible academic editor considers the manuscript, independent reviewer reports, author responses, revised files, research-integrity concerns, scholarly or community-service contribution, and applicable ACSR policies before reaching or recommending a final scientific-editorial decision.

Where reviewer reports materially disagree, the academic editor may assess the reasons for disagreement, request clarification, consult a qualified specialist, or obtain an additional independent review when necessary. Reviewer disagreement does not automatically require acceptance or rejection.

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, misleading data or image manipulation, inappropriate authorship, fabricated references, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misleading methodological or implementation claims, unethical community-service practices, or other serious integrity concerns must be reported confidentially to the responsible academic editor.

Reviewers should describe the relevant concerns, supporting evidence, and potential scholarly significance without independently investigating authors, contacting institutions or community participants, communicating directly with authors, or making unsupported allegations. The Editorial Office and responsible academic editors determine the appropriate follow-up under ACSR publication-ethics policies.

Citations and references should be evaluated for relevance, accuracy, traceability, and evidentiary support. Reviewers may recommend genuinely relevant sources when there is a clear academic justification, but must not pressure authors to cite the reviewer's publications, ACSR publications, a preferred journal, colleague, research group, or other works primarily to increase citation counts.

Where a citation or reference appears fabricated, inaccurately represented, unverifiable, or incapable of supporting the relevant claim, reviewers should identify the issue clearly and explain the required verification or correction. Reference and citation presentation should follow the journal's applicable APA Style, 7th edition requirements.

Authors may be requested to submit revised manuscripts and point-by-point responses to reviewer and editorial comments. Reviewers should determine whether the stated responses correspond to actual manuscript revisions, whether supporting evidence is adequate, and whether the material concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.

Revision-Round Principle: Reviewers should focus primarily on previously identified substantive concerns. Major new requirements should not ordinarily be introduced unless revisions create new material problems, new evidence reveals a significant previously unidentified issue, or a substantial scientific or integrity problem was reasonably missed during an earlier evaluation.

Reviewers should distinguish unresolved scientific or research-integrity concerns from minor editorial matters that can appropriately be addressed through copyediting, proofreading, formatting, or production after final academic acceptance. Scientific-editorial acceptance must remain independent of publication-support functions.

Reviewers should respond to review invitations and submit their reports within the timeframe specified through the ACSR Online Journal System or communicated by the responsible academic editor. Timely, carefully considered participation supports fair editorial administration and responsible scholarly evaluation.

If a reviewer requires additional time, encounters a conflict of interest, determines that the manuscript falls outside their expertise, or becomes unable to complete the review, the Editorial Office should be informed promptly so that an appropriate extension, replacement, or other editorial arrangement can be considered.

Researchers, academics, and qualified professionals with relevant scholarly, methodological, or community-service expertise may register through the official ACSR Online Journal System and indicate their willingness to review manuscripts.

During registration, prospective reviewers should select the option "Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal." They should provide accurate information concerning their institutional affiliation, scholarly specialization, research interests, methodological competence, community-engagement expertise where applicable, and relevant academic or professional experience.

Registration does not automatically confer public Reviewer Team membership, an editorial appointment, or a guaranteed review invitation. Reviewers are selected according to manuscript relevance, expertise, independence, availability, review quality, and conflicts-of-interest considerations.

ACSR recognizes independent peer reviewing as an important form of scholarly and professional service. Reviewers contribute specialized knowledge, critical judgment, methodological competence, community-service expertise, and professional responsibility to support the quality and credibility of the journal's publications.

Reviewers are not employed by ACSR solely by virtue of their reviewer role and do not receive a regular salary or review honorarium for ordinary peer-review assignments.

Reviewer APC Discount: Under the journal's reviewer-recognition arrangement, eligible reviewers who agree to assess an assigned manuscript are entitled to a 10% discount on the applicable standard ACSR Article Processing Charge for manuscripts they submit to ACSR, subject to verification of eligibility by the Editorial Office.

The reviewer discount applies only to administrative APC assessment where a manuscript has independently received final scientific-editorial acceptance and an APC is otherwise payable. It is not an advance payment, a review honorarium, or a guarantee of publication. It does not replace a full APC waiver where the manuscript already qualifies for a waiver under the journal's applicable institutional-affiliation policy.

Reviewer participation, reviewer-recognition eligibility, APC discounts, and other administrative arrangements do not provide guaranteed manuscript acceptance, preferential scholarly treatment, expedited scientific evaluation, favorable reviewer selection, or any influence over editorial decisions.

Where administratively available, ACSR may also provide reviewer acknowledgements or documentation of completed peer-review service, subject to confidentiality, applicable consent, and the integrity of the double-anonymous peer-review process.

The ACSR reviewer framework operates in conjunction with the journal's Aims & Scope, exactly two OJS editorial sections, section-specific manuscript templates, designated review forms, editorial-independence requirements, research-integrity standards, and publication ethics.

The Article section uses the standard scholarly review form for Research Paper and Literature Review Paper manuscripts. The Community Partnerships and Impacts section uses its dedicated 11-component review form for Community Service Article manuscripts.

Legitimate updates to reviewer guidance, manuscript templates, review forms, editorial procedures, reviewer appointments, or the public reviewer directory do not retrospectively invalidate valid historical peer-review records, completed editorial decisions, or established scholarly records. Updated requirements should be applied consistently and prospectively in accordance with applicable journal policies.

Editorial & Reviewer Support: Questions concerning review invitations, OJS access, review deadlines, reviewer registration, conflicts of interest, review assignments, reviewer recognition, or administrative aspects of peer review may be directed to Muslim Muslim, Managing Editor, at advancesresearch@gmail.com.

Principal Academic Editorial Contact: Matters requiring scientific-editorial attention may be directed to Muhammad Ridwan Manulusi, Editor-in-Chief, through the official ACSR Editorial Office.

Administrative WhatsApp: +62 821 9454 8786. Administrative messaging does not replace confidential OJS peer-review records, formal reviewer reports, or the official academic editorial decision-making process.

ACSR values the expertise, independence, confidentiality, ethical conduct, methodological judgment, community-engagement understanding, constructive criticism, and professional responsibility of its peer reviewers. Responsible reviewer participation strengthens editorial evaluation, supports meaningful manuscript improvement, and contributes to the integrity of the scholarly and community-service publication record.

The Editorial Office appreciates reviewers who contribute their time, experience, and independent professional judgment to the journal's double-anonymous peer-review process.