Reviewer Guidelines

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers are responsible for criticizing by reading and evaluating articles in their field of expertise, then providing constructive suggestions and providing honest feedback to the article authors who submitted their articles. Peer reviewers, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to improve the strength and quality of the article, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

  • Do you have time to review an article? The review process must be completed within one week. If you agree or need more time, let the editor know as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Is there a potential conflict of interest? If so, please disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. If you have any questions about a potential conflict of interest, please don't hesitate to contact our editors.

Review Process

When reviewing articles, please consider the following:

  • Title : does it describe the article clearly?
  • Abstract : does it reflect the content of the article?
    Introduction : does it describe the accuracy of what the author is saying and clearly state the issue under consideration? Usually, the introduction should summarize the relevant research context, and explain the research findings or other findings. Research should also describe experiments, hypotheses and methods.

Article Content
To determine the originality and worthiness of a journal, please consider the following:

  • Is the article new, deep enough, and interesting to publish?
  • Does it contribute to knowledge?
  • Is the article in accordance with the standards of the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies (JAMS) ?
  • Scope - Is the article in accordance with the objectives and scope of the JAMS ?

Comprehensive Method :

  • Did the authors accurately describe how the data was collected ?
  • Is the theoretical basis or references used appropriate for this research ?
  • Is there any new method ? If there is a new method, is the author explain it in detail ?

Results :
This is where the author must explain the findings in his research. Must be laid out clearly and in a logical order. You should notify the author if you have any input regarding the results of the research that the author has written.

Discussion and Conclusion:

  • Are the claims in this section supported by valid and reasonable results ?
  • Does the author compare the results of the study with previous/other studies ?
  • Do the research results written in the article contradict the previous theories ?
  • Do these conclusions explain how scientific research is better to follow up ?

Tables and Figures :

  • Is it in accordance with the intended explanation by displaying data that is easily interpreted and understood by the reader?

Writting Style

  • The author should be especially critical for a systematic review of the literature on the subject, relevant to the fields of film, television, photography and new media studies.
  • Reviews should be focused on one topic.
  • Easy to understand
  • Interesting to read

Things that need to be considered :

Perspective, a unique perspective that describes experiences and situations related to issues in the fields Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies (JAMS).

Reference

  • First Person (Interview)
  • Book review
  • Technology Insights ( Media Review )
  • Final Review

All review

Results submitted by reviewers are confidential

Do not contact the author directly.