Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Reviewer Responsibility
Perbanas Journal of Islamic Economics & Business applied double blind review process, where both the reviewer(s) and author(s) remains anonymous throughout the process. Before handling paper to review process, submitted article(s) will be check first for its originality by using Turnitin software. Next, all manuscripts submitted to this journal are evaluated by the Editor to ensure the manuscripts suitable with aims and scope of the journal. In this case some manuscripts are rejected or returned before the review process. 
Before reviewing, please pay attention to the following:
⦁ After initial evaluation, the manuscripts are sent to at least two reviewers which are determined by editorial board. If necessary, the number of reviewers can be increased by Editorial Board. The reviewers are chosen from reviewers list board according to their expertise.
⦁ Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodology, contribution to the literature, novelty, presentation of results and support for the conclusions, and appropriate referencing of previous relevant studies. Referees might accept the manuscript, reject the manuscript or might require a revision for style and/or content.
⦁ For publication of articles, two positive reports are required. In case one referee report is negative while the other is positive, the article is forwarded to a third referee for addition evaluation.
⦁ When a revision is required by the referee or referees, the author(s) are to consider the criticism and suggestions offered by the referees, and author should be sent back the revised version of manuscript within 30 days. If revised manuscript is not sent in a month, the manuscript is removed from referee evaluation process.
⦁ Reviewer may request more than one revision of a manuscript. Manuscripts which are not accepted for publication are not re-sent to their author(s).
⦁ The editors then make a decision based on the reviewer’s recommendation from among several possibilities: rejected, require major revision, need minor revision, or accepted.
⦁ Editor in Chief has the right to decide which manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published.
⦁ The accepted manuscripts for publication are placed in an issue sequence. The whole process is assumed to be completely within 12-25 weeks
Review Process
When reviewing the article, 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 the things conveyed by the author and clearly state the issues under consideration? Typically, the introduction should summarize the relevant research context, and explain the findings of the study or other findings, if any, offered for discussion. This research should explain experiments, hypotheses, and methods.
 Article Content
The submitted manuscript would be check for plagiarism using by turnitin as a plagiarism checker and no more than 30% if previous research has been done by other authors.
⦁ the article new, deep enough, and interesting to publish
⦁ contribute to knowledge
⦁ the article comply with journal standards
⦁ Scope – the article fit the purpose and scope of the journal
This is where the author should explain the findings in his research. It should be arranged clearly and in a logical order. You need to consider whether the analysis has been carried out accordingly or not; The use of statistical tools is appropriate if this research is quantitative type.
Discussions and conclusions:
⦁ Are the claims in this section supported by fair and reasonable results?
⦁ Do the authors compare the results of the study with previous studies?
⦁ Do the results of the research written in the article contradict the previous theory?
⦁ What are the conclusions explaining how better scientific research is to act?
⦁ The method clearly written, so that other researchers can replicate experiments or studies with the same results.
⦁ The method does not only explain the definition of the term but also explains how to conduct research.
⦁ The method describes location, participants, research instruments, and data analysis
Writing Style
⦁ The author should be critical especially on a systematic review of the literature on issues, The Content is in accordance with the focus and scope of PJIEB Journal
⦁ Manuscripts are written in Indonesia or English, consist of 4500 - 6000 word.
⦁ The paper has never been published in other journals and free of plagiarism
⦁ The script journal is adapted to PJIEB template
⦁ The script should use MENDELEY tool reference with APA style 7
⦁ Easy to understand
⦁ Interesting to read
 Final Review
⦁ All review results submitted by reviewers are confidential
⦁ If you would like to discuss the article with colleagues, please inform the editor
⦁ Do not contact the author directly.
⦁ Ethical issues:
Plagiarism: if you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please tell the editor in detail
- Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the category of fraud, but if you suspect the results in the article are incorrect, please notify the editor
After reviewing the article, please provide recommendations for authors and editors:
⦁ Accept Submissions (with or without minor revisions): 
This article is well researched and written and on topics important to the field and journal, without significant gaps in methodology or analysis. The article may require a little extra on its theoretical or scientific background, or it may need to be edited, but it does not require significant additional research or restructuring.
⦁ Revision required: 
The article is an important topic for the field and journal but requires some additional research or rewriting before it is worthy of publication. The review identifies some gaps in analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: or identifies the need for the article to undergo some reorganization or writing. However, reviewers are confident that the revision can be successfully completed under the supervision of the journal editor.
⦁ Resubmit for Review:
The article addresses topics that are important to the field and journal, but require significant additional research or rewriting before they are suitable for publication. The review identifies some substantial gaps in analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: or identifies the need for the article to undergo significant reorganization or rewrite. Reviewers feel that these necessary revisions are significant enough that the article should be resubmitted for additional rounds of review.
⦁ Reject: 
The article addresses topics with limited relevance to fields and journals, and/or requires significant additional research or rewriting before they are eligible for publication. In the latter case, the review identifies several significant gaps in the analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: and/or identifies the need for the article to undergo significant reorganization or rewrite. Reviewers have little confidence that such revisions can be successfully completed within a reasonable time frame.
Complete the "Review" before the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendations for the article will be considered when the editor makes the final decision and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.
When you write a comment, please show you a section of the comment that is only intended for the editor and a part that can be returned to the author.
Feel free to contact the editorial office if there are any questions or problems you may encounter.