Reviewer Team
Reviewer Team
The peer-review process of Advances in Community Services Research (ACSR) is supported by scholarly expertise relevant to community services, community engagement, community partnerships, social sciences, and related interdisciplinary fields within the journal's stated Aims & Scope.
ACSR maintains two editorial sections: Article, accepting Research Paper and Literature Review Paper manuscripts, and Community Partnerships and Impacts, accepting Community Service Article manuscripts. Each section follows its designated manuscript template and peer-review assessment framework.
Eligible manuscripts normally undergo double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected according to manuscript relevance, subject expertise, methodological competence, independence, and availability. Inclusion in the public directory does not establish assignment to any particular manuscript.
Public Reviewer Directory
Reviewer Expertise & Assignment
Reviewer selection is based on the manuscript's scholarly contribution, subject relevance, methodological requirements, independence, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. Additional qualified reviewers may be invited when specialist expertise is required.
Article: Research Paper and Literature Review Paper manuscripts follow the Advances in Research Master Manuscript Template and are evaluated using the journal's standard scholarly review form. Assessment considers originality, theoretical or conceptual contribution, research or review methodology, analysis, evidence, interpretation, conclusions, and scholarly relevance.
Community Partnerships and Impacts: Community Service Article manuscripts follow the New ACSR Template Submission and are evaluated using the dedicated Community Partnerships and Impacts Review Form, consisting of 11 assessment components. Evaluation considers the applicable community-service reporting requirements, implementation, outcomes, community participation, and evidence supporting the claimed impacts.
Independence, Ethics & Confidentiality
Reviewers provide impartial, evidence-based, constructive, and confidential assessments. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The responsible academic editor or Editor-in-Chief retains authority for scientific-editorial decisions in accordance with applicable ACSR policies.
Reviewers must not contact authors directly, attempt to identify anonymized authors, delegate reviewing responsibilities without authorization, misuse unpublished research, request coercive citations, or disclose confidential manuscript materials. Professional, personal, financial, institutional, collaborative, supervisory, or competitive conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
Editorial Team members who also serve as reviewers must not evaluate or decide manuscripts involving their own work or material conflicts of interest. Confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence must not be disclosed to unauthorized services or publicly accessible generative-AI systems.
Review Quality
Reviewer reports should be objective, constructive, specific, sufficiently evidenced, and respectful. Assessments should distinguish substantive scientific, theoretical, methodological, ethical, evidentiary, interpretive, or community-impact concerns from minor language, formatting, and presentation issues.
Reviews of revised manuscripts should determine whether previously identified material concerns have been adequately addressed and whether unresolved scientific or research-integrity issues remain. New substantial requirements should be requested only when academically necessary and justified.
Reviewer Interest & Directory Status
Researchers with relevant scholarly, methodological, or community-service expertise may register in the ACSR Online Journal System and express an interest in reviewing. Registration does not automatically confer public directory membership or a review invitation. Reviewer suitability, independence, availability, and the journal's editorial needs remain subject to assessment.
The public reviewer directory reflects the journal's supplied reviewer records and does not certify the current availability of every listed person. Affiliations and profiles may be administratively verified and updated as appropriate. Legitimate directory changes do not retrospectively alter completed review records, editorial decisions, or established publication records.
Reviewer Correspondence
Questions concerning reviewer invitations, review deadlines, OJS access, conflicts of interest, or administrative support may be directed to the Managing Editor, Muslim Muslim, at advancesresearch@gmail.com. Matters requiring academic editorial attention may be referred to the Editor-in-Chief, Muhammad Ridwan Manulusi, through the journal's editorial office.
For Reviewers → · Editorial Team → · Aims & Scope → · Contact →