Reviewer Guidance

Special Edition of Journal Humaniora

Precariousness and the Crisis of Care

Thank you for taking the time and thought to read this manuscript. The manuscripts are part of
the call for presentation in the International Conference on Care Dynamics in Contemporary
Indonesia, 11-12 January 2023 in UGM. We received many exciting presentations and articles
on the topic of challenges in providing care, family-based care, a gender perspective on care,
civil society engagement on care, and empirical studies on dependent groups’ care in our
communities. Most of the presentations implied a rising precariousness in rural or urban areas
that significantly impacts the care arrangements of dependent member groups.
Humaniora is an academic, open-access, and peer-reviewed journal founded and first published
in 1989 by the Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada. Starting in 2022, the
journal is published twice per year whose all articles have been published exclusively in English.
In this Special Edition, we initiate an internal review in which each contributor reads and reviews
other manuscripts to gather fruitful insights. We expect the reviewer to assist and guide other
contributors with clear and structured arguments.
As a reminder, the contributors are technically expected to:
1. Articles are written in English using academic language along with standard academic
writing structure and composition. Manuscripts are typed 1,5 spaced in a quarto paper
size (A4), between 6000-8000 words in length including references, pictures, and tables.
Papers that greatly exceed this will be critically reviewed with respect to length.
2. Articles should be in form of essay which includes:
a. Title (max. 15 words),
b. Abstract (150-200 words for each) which includes research problems, methods,
and results,
c. Keywords (5-7 words),
d. Introduction (without subsection, 2-3 pages) which includes background,
objectives, methods, and literature reviews/theoretical construct (if needed) of the
research. The introduction section ends with an emphasis on items to be
discussed,
e. Discussion (consists of result of the study, written in the form of subchapter(s)),
f. Conclusion (is a brief summary of findings and discussion. It is strongly
recommended to avoid mere repetitive statements from the previous sections)
and,
g. References.
The reviewer can also follow the guidance of the manuscript’s review as written in the
Appendix. We would appreciate it if the reviewer can provide constructive
comments/inputs/questions directly in the manuscript file, as it is considered to help contributors
finding out the gaps.
Appendix
Guidance to Reviewers
Title of Article: …
No. Question
YES
1. Does the title describe the
content of the manuscript?
2. Does the abstract reflect the
overall content of the
manuscript?
3. Are the problem(s) and
objective(s) presented in the
introduction adequately
addressed in the discussion?
4. Are the data presented reliable
and valid to address the
problem(s)?
5. Is the method or approach
appropriate?
6. Is the data analysis in
accordance with the theoretical
framework?
7. Are the references relevant?
8. Does the conclusion address the
Answer
NO REASON
v It needs improvement,
already came up with
suggestion
Saparuik and Moknehi: kinship-
based tensions in care for older
people
v There is no abstract, need to
be included.
v The article has to be
significantly restructured; it
came up with following
suggestion in the text.
Insufficient and redundant
v
V The findings need to be
restructured. Make sure to
distinguish between case
study in Minangkabau and
Alor. So that the reader will
not be confused in following
the narration.
Please also add analysis in
the Discussion instead of
Findings, left findings only
for the data – case study.
v It is relevant but it has to be
encouraged by other
references as suggested in
the comments.
v As the findings and
 problem(s) in accordance with
the data analysis?
9 Does the language adequately
convey the author’s idea?
10 Does the paper contribute to
scholarly discussion on the
crisis of care? Novelty in
approach, methods, and
analysis?
11 Any other comments on how
the author can improve the
manuscript?
discussions grow, the
conclusion needs to be
adjusted afterward
v Not yet, some rephrased has
been made. It has to be
followed with English
translation.
v The article provides an
interesting angle/novelty by
comparing between
patrilineal and matrilineal
kinship.
(1) Restructures the whole article: abstract,
introduction, method, findings
following with the section about the
kinship, tensions (cabiak2 bulu ayam
etc), Discussion (it is allowed to have
references here), Conclusions
(2) Rephrase the sentences, some of them
need clarity
Name of Reviewer: Larastiti