Reviewer Guideline

Guidelines for Reviewers
Responsibility of Peer Reviewer
A peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the article's author. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

  • Is the article requested to be reviewed following your expertise? If you receive a script that covers the topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please recommend an alternative reviewer.
  • Do you have the time to review this paper? Who must complete the review process within two weeks? If you agree and require a more extended period, notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Is there any potential conflict of interest? Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer; disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

Review Process
When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

  • Title: is it clearly illustrating the article?
  • Abstract: does it reflect the contents of the article?
  • Introduction: does it describe the accuracy of matters submitted by the author and clearly state the problem being considered? Typically, the introduction should summarize the context of the relevant research and explain the study's findings or other results, if any, offered for discussion. This research should clarify the experiments, hypotheses and methods.

Content of the Article
To determine the originality and suitability of the journal, are there any elements of plagiarism over 20% of this paper field? A quick literature search can use specific tools such as Scopus to see if there are similarities from other parts.

  • If other authors had previously done the study, it is still eligible for publication?
  • Is the article relatively new, reasonably deep, and enjoyable to be published?
  • Does it contribute to knowledge?
  • Does the article adhere to the standards of the journal?
  • Scope - Is the article in line with the objectives and scope of the journal?

Method
Comprehensive and perfect:

  • does the author accurately describe how the data is collected?
  • Is the theoretical basis or reference used appropriately for this study?
  • Is the exposure design suitable for the answer to the question?
  • Is there decent enough information for you to imitate the research?
  • Does the article identify the following procedures?
  • Are there any new methods? If there is a new method, does the author explain it in detail?
  • Is there any appropriate sampling?
  • Have the tools and materials used been adequately defined? And
  • does the article exposure describe what data is recorded, right in describing the measurement?

Results:
This is where the author must explain the findings of their research. It should be laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider whether the appropriate analysis has been carried out; the use of statistical tools? If you have a better statistical tool to be used in this study, notify it, and who need not include the interpretation in this section.

Discussion and Conclusion:

  • are the claims in this section supported by the fair results and quite reasonable?
  • Does the author compare the research results with other previous ones?
  • Do the research results in the article contradict the previous theories?
  • Does the conclusion explain how better scientific research to be followed-up?

Tables and Pictures:
Is it suitable with the referred explanation to show data which is easy to interpret and understandable for the readers?

Writing Styles

  • Authors must be critical primarily to the systematic literature review of the issues relevant to the field of study.
  • Who should focus reviews on a single topic?
  • All exposure should be in English and written in excellent and coherent grammar.
  • Easy to understand
  • Interesting to read

Things that need to be considered:

  • Perspective is a unique perspective that describes experiences and situations related to issues in all areas of education.

Originality Research

  • The original data and testing must present data that offers a new approach to improving the tools' systems, processes, and precision.
  • Research policy and observational analysis should clarify the research results' feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation.
  • In Practice (case study), The paper should explain the situation regarding the future challenges in education, within its conclusions, and who can learn.

Reference

  • First Person (Interview)
  • Book Reviews
  • Insight Technology (Product Review)

Final Review

  • All results of the review submitted by reviewers are confidential
  • If you want to discuss the article with a colleague, kindly inform the editor
  • Do not contact the author directly.
  • Ethical issues:

- Plagiarism: if you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please let the editor knows the details
- Fraud: It is challenging to detect a fraud category, but if you suspect the results in the article are not valid, please inform the editor

Complete "The Review" by the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendation for the article will be considered when the editor makes a final decision, and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.

When you write a comment, please show the part of the comment that is only intended for the editor and features that who can return to the author.

Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or problems that you may encounter.