Plagiarism Check

Forum Geografi has established the following policy outlining precise actions (penalties) that will be taken when plagiarism is found in an article that has been submitted for publication in this journal. Use or close replication of the words and ideas of another author while representing them as one's own unique work is defined as plagiarism. Papers must be original, unpublished, and not in the process of being published elsewhere. Any information that has been obtained directly from another source needs to be recognized as such by (1) indentation, (2) use of quotation marks, and (3) citing the source. Any text that is longer than what is considered fair use (here defined as more than two or three sentences or the equivalent) or any graphic material that has been copied from another source need the permission of the copyright holder and, if possible, the original author(s), as well as attribution, such as previous publication. Turnitin will be used to check all submitted papers for plagiarism. When plagiarism is found, the principal editor in charge of the review of this work will decide on appropriate measures in accordance with the level of plagiarism.

The detail of Plagiarism Poly can be found here.

Guidelines for Reviewer

Reviewer Guidelines
Peer reviewers are crucial to preserving the quality and integrity of the journal's publications.

Responsibilities of the Peer Reviewer:

The primary duty of a peer reviewer is to read and assess papers that fall under the purview of their area of expertise. Give the authors frank feedback and suggestions for how to make their submitted articles better. Consider the manuscript's advantages and disadvantages, its usefulness and veracity, and ways to improve its overall quality and strength.


Prior to Reviewing:

Please take into account the following before starting the review process:

1. Expertise: Make sure the article is under your domain of knowledge. Please let the editor know right away if you get a manuscript that is outside the scope of your expertise and suggest a different reviewer.
2. Time Commitment: It should take no longer than two weeks to finish the evaluation process. Please let the editor know ahead of time if you will need more time, or propose a different reviewer.
3. Interest Conflict: Any potential conflicts of interest should be declared to the editor. Even though you are still eligible to be a reviewer despite having conflicts of interest, transparency is crucial. Please feel free to get in touch with the editorial office if you have any issues about potential conflicts of interest.


Review Procedure:

Please take into account the following factors when evaluating the manuscript:

1. Title: Consider whether the title accurately summarizes the article's content.
2. Abstract: Consider whether the abstract fairly summarizes the manuscript's contents.
3. Introduction: Examine the introduction to see if it accurately describes the topic and states the issue being addressed. The introduction should set the scene, outline pertinent research (state of the art), analyze gaps, and describe the goals and methodologies of the study.
4. Content of the Article: Consider the following while evaluating the manuscript's originality and fitness for publication:
 - Check for prior research: Determine whether the study has been done before by other authors. Determine whether the manuscript offers fresh insights into the subject.
 - Originality: Evaluate the piece to see if it is fresh, substantive, and engaging enough to be published. Analyze how it adds to our understanding.
 - Journal Requirements: Check to see if the manuscript complies with the journal's requirements for quality, scope, and aims.

5. Method: Assess the study's methodological components.
 - Examine the study area to see if it is well introduced.
 - Data Collection: Evaluate the author's accuracy in describing the data collection process.
 - Evaluation of the Experimental Design: Determine whether the experimental design is appropriate to answer the research topic.
 - Reproducibility: Determine whether the paper has enough details to permit the research to be repeated.
 - New Methods: If the manuscript describes any new techniques, consider how well they are explained.
 - Sample (if any): Examine the sample strategy to see if it is adequate.
 - Check to see if the tools and materials utilized are sufficiently explained.
 - Data Description: Determine whether the article adequately explains the many types of data collected as well as the measuring procedure.

6. Results: Evaluate the author's presentation of the study's findings:
 - Clarity and Logic: Determine whether the findings are presented in a clear and logical order.
 - Analysis: Take into account if the proper analysis, using statistical methods, has been done. Please recommend to the author any more effective statistical tools you think might be useful for the study. This section is not required to contain the interpretation.

7. Discussion and Conclusion: Assess the section's discussion and conclusion.
 - Supportive statements: Examine the statements stated in this section to see if they are reasonable and supported by the research.
 - Comparison with Previous Research: Determine whether the author has made comparisons between the research findings and those of earlier studies in the area.
 - Contradictions: Take into account whether the research findings conflict with accepted beliefs or earlier findings.
 - Research limitation: Evaluate whether the debate has highlighted the study's limitations.
 - Determine if the finding offers directions for additional scientific inquiry.

Tables and Figure:
Examine the tables and figures in connection to the information presented in the text to determine whether they are appropriate. Make sure that they are simple for readers to interpret and comprehend.

Maps:
The following general specifications for map presentation in a scholarly article:
1. Clarity and Legibility: The map should be easy to read and should clearly display all pertinent information. Even when the map is scaled down for publication, the text, labels, symbols, and lines should still be readable.
2. Scale and Orientation: To show how map distances compare to actual distances, the map should provide a scale bar or representative proportion. To indicate the direction of the map, an orientation indicator (such as a north arrow) should be shown.
3. Projection and Coordinate System: The projection and coordinate system that were utilized to make the map should be included. For correctly evaluating and comparing spatial data, this information is crucial.
4. Data Sources and Citations: Clearly state the sources of the data that were used to build the map, including any primary data that were gathered or secondary data that were acquired from other sources. To give credit where credit is due, properly cite the data sources.
Include a detailed legend that describes the symbols, colors, and patterns used in the map. The legend should be brief while also giving readers enough details to properly understand the map.
6. Map Elements: The map should have vital components including a title, author, publishing date, and any required acknowledgments. It should also have a clean, polished border or frame to improve the presentation as a whole.
7. Consistency and Compatibility: Make sure the map's style, color scheme, and symbolism are all consistent. The map should be compliant with the journal's general design and formatting standards.
8. Data quality and Precision: Check the precision and quality of the spatial data used in the map to make sure it fits the article's intended purpose. To portray the data at the required level of detail without sacrificing accuracy, use the appropriate techniques, such as generalization or smoothing.
9. Map Resolution and Size: For the best reproduction, take into account the journal's specifications for size and resolution. The resolution of the map should be such that it retains its clarity and detail when scaled down for publication.
10. Accessibility: Make the map as accessible as possible for readers who have color blindness or other visual impairments. To express information that might depend on color, offer other text descriptions or patterns.

Writing Style:

Take into account the following elements:
1. Critical analysis: Authors should evaluate the pertinent literature on the subject of the study critically.
2. Single-topic reviews should have a narrow emphasis.
3. Grammar: To make reading reviews easier, all reviews should be written in clear, understandable English.
4. Readability: Make sure the material is simple to understand and enjoyable to read.


Important Points:

Please bear the following in mind:

1. Point of view: Articles should present a distinctive point of view that discusses experiences and circumstances pertaining to a variety of management-related topics, such as marketing, finance, strategic management, operations, human resources, e-business, knowledge management, accounting, control systems, information systems, international business, economics, ethics, sustainability, and entrepreneurship.
2. Originality: Evaluate the research's originality by taking into account the use of novel data, testing, research guidelines, observational analyses, or real-world case studies. The article need to aid in enhancing the relevant fields' methods, procedures, and accuracy.
3. References: First-person accounts, book reviews, and opinions on technological advancements can all be included in reviews.


Final Review:

Please keep the following points in mind:

1. Confidentiality: All review findings must be kept secret.
2. Conversations: Please let the editor know if you plan to have a conversation about the piece with a colleague.
3. Author Contact: Avoid getting in touch with the author directly. The editorial office should be contacted for any communications.
4. Ethical Concerns: If you believe the submission contains plagiarism or fraud, please give the editor specific details.


Recommendation to Editor:

1. Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted with no additional changes required.
2. Revision Required: In light of the reviewers' recommendations, the paper is accepted with a few minor alterations or adjustments.
3. Resubmit for review: Before it can be accepted, the manuscript needs to undergo a second round of reviews.
4. Resubmit for elsewhere :if it has the potential to be published but its subject matter is outside the journal's purview.
5. Decline: The journal will not publish the submitted manuscript.
Finish the Review by the deadline and send it to the editorial department. The editor will take your suggestions into account when making the final choice, and we really value your honest input.