CITRAKARA appreciates the contribution of reviewers to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and evidence-based evaluations.

1. Before Accepting a Review

Reviewers should consider whether:

• the manuscript is within their area of expertise;
• they have sufficient time to complete the review;
• they have no conflict of interest; and
• they can provide an independent and objective assessment.

Reviewers should decline the invitation if they:

• have a significant conflict of interest;
• recently collaborated closely with the authors;
• work in the same immediate research project;
• have a personal relationship with the authors; or
• cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe.

2. Confidentiality

The manuscript and all associated materials must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not:

• share the manuscript;
• distribute manuscript files;
• copy substantial portions of the manuscript;
• discuss the manuscript with unauthorized persons; or
• use unpublished information for their own research.

3. General Evaluation

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript:

A. Has a clear research problem

Is the research problem sufficiently specific and academically significant?

B. Has a clear objective or research question

Does the research objective logically follow from the identified problem?

C. Engages with relevant literature

Does the manuscript demonstrate adequate understanding of previous research?

D. Identifies a research gap

Does the manuscript explain what is missing or unresolved in previous research?

E. Uses an appropriate methodology

Is the chosen methodology suitable for addressing the research question?

F. Presents valid findings

Are the findings supported by the data or research process?

G. Provides critical discussion

Does the Discussion interpret the findings rather than merely describe them?

H. Makes a scholarly contribution

Does the manuscript contribute something meaningful to design knowledge?

4. Specific Criteria for Design Research

Because CITRAKARA is a Visual Communication Design journal, reviewers should pay particular attention to the relationship between creative practice and research. A manuscript involving a design product should explain:

• Why was the design created?
• What research problem does it address?
• What theoretical or conceptual framework informs the design?
• How was the design process conducted as research?
• How were design decisions analyzed or evaluated?
• What knowledge does the research contribute beyond the final design product?

A visually attractive design does not automatically constitute a strong research contribution.

5. Practice-Based Research

For practice-based or practice-led research, reviewers should evaluate:

• clarity of the research problem;
• relationship between theory and practice;
• methodological transparency;
• documentation of the creative process;
• critical reflection;
• evaluation of creative outcomes; and
• contribution to design knowledge.

Reviewers should distinguish between creative quality and research quality. Both may be important, but they are not identical.

6. Visual Materials

Reviewers should assess whether visual materials:

• support the research argument;
• are appropriately analyzed;
• are sufficiently documented;
• are relevant to the research question;
• are presented clearly;
• have appropriate sources; and
• comply with ethical and copyright considerations.

Visual materials should not simply function as decoration.

7. Discussion Quality

Reviewers should pay particular attention to the Discussion section. A strong Discussion should connect:

Research Findings

↓

Interpretation

↓

Previous Research

↓

Theory / Concept

↓

Implication

↓

Contribution

Reviewers should encourage authors to move beyond descriptive statements toward critical interpretation.

8. References and Citations

Reviewers should assess whether:

• references are relevant;
• citations support the claims being made;
• important scholarly literature has been considered;
• recent research is appropriately represented;
• references are accurately cited; and
• citations are not manipulated.

Reviewers should not require authors to cite the reviewer's own publications unless they are genuinely relevant.

9. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should identify potential concerns involving:

• plagiarism;
• duplicate publication;
• fabricated data;
• falsified data;
• inappropriate authorship;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• unethical research involving participants;
• copyright violations; and
• inappropriate use of AI.

Potential ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor rather than discussed directly with the authors.

10. Generative AI and Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential peer-review materials to external generative AI systems unless explicitly authorized by the journal. Reviewers remain responsible for maintaining confidentiality, independent judgment, and academic integrity. AI tools must not replace the reviewer's scholarly assessment.

11. Constructive Review Comments

Review comments should be specific, respectful, evidence-based, actionable, academically relevant, and focused on improving the manuscript.

Reviewers should avoid:

• offensive language;
• personal criticism;
• assumptions about the author's competence;
• discriminatory comments;
• irrelevant demands; and
• statements unrelated to the manuscript.

12. Recommended Review Structure

Reviewers are encouraged to organize their comments as follows:

General Assessment

Provide a brief overall assessment of the manuscript.

Major Issues

Identify issues that substantially affect:

• research validity;
• methodology;
• theoretical framework;
• analysis;
• discussion;
• contribution; or
• ethical integrity.

Minor Issues

Identify issues involving:

• clarity;
• grammar;
• formatting;
• figures;
• tables;
• references

Recommendation

Select one: Accept — Minor Revision — Major Revision — Reject.