Reviewers Guidelines

1. Responsibility of Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for evaluating the quality, originality, validity, relevance, and scientific contribution of manuscripts submitted to Edunesia: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan (Educational Research in Indonesia). Reviews must be objective, constructive, evidence-based, and consistent with the journal’s aims, scope, and current article template.

Reviewers should assess the research problem, theoretical foundation, methodology, data analysis, interpretation, contribution, and presentation. Comments must be specific, professional, and helpful to authors in improving their manuscripts.

2. Before Accepting a Review

Reviewers should consider the following:

  • Expertise: Accept manuscripts that fall within their academic competence. Notify the editor if the subject or methodology is outside their expertise and, where possible, recommend an alternative reviewer.

  • Availability: The standard review period is two weeks from acceptance of the invitation. Request an extension promptly when necessary.

  • Conflict of interest: Disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts to the editor before reviewing.

  • Journal relevance: Consider whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of Edunesia and presents a meaningful educational research problem.

3. Ethics and Confidentiality

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and unpublished information. Manuscripts must not be shared, disclosed, or used for personal or professional advantage. Permission from the editor is required before involving another person in the review.

Reviews must be fair, independent, and respectful. Personal judgments, discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, and inappropriate requests for self-citation must be avoided.

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, manipulation, or other ethical concerns must be reported confidentially to the editor with supporting evidence where available. Similarity scores must be interpreted contextually; a score alone does not establish plagiarism. A similarity score exceeding 25% should be flagged for editorial assessment in accordance with the journal’s applicable policy.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished data to external AI systems or services not authorized for confidential peer review. They remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and confidentiality of their reports.

4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript as a whole and examine each section against the current Edunesia article template.

4.1. Title, Author Information, and Metadata

Assess whether the title is concise, clear, informative, and consistent with the actual research. Check the consistency of author names, affiliations, and corresponding author information. Report material concerns regarding authorship or contribution confidentially to the editor.

4.2. Abstract and Keywords

The manuscript must include Indonesian and English abstracts, each containing 150–160 words. Both must convey equivalent information and include the research objective, method, main findings, and implications. Abstracts must not contain citations or references.

The template specifies Book Antiqua, 9 pt, and single line spacing. Keywords must contain 3–5 terms, separated by commas and arranged alphabetically.

4.3. Introduction

The Introduction must contain 800–1,000 words, using Book Antiqua, 11 pt, and 1.15 line spacing. Reviewers should assess whether it:

  • Establishes the global educational issue and research urgency.

  • Explains the specific research problem and relevant context.

  • Synthesizes appropriate theories and previous studies.

  • Clearly identifies a defensible research gap.

  • Explains the study’s novelty and contribution.

  • States research questions that align with the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.

The argument should progress logically from the general issue to the specific problem and proposed scientific contribution. Claims must be supported by relevant scholarly references.

4.4. Method

The Method section must contain 600–700 words, written in coherent paragraphs without subheadings, using Book Antiqua, 11 pt, and 1.15 line spacing.

Reviewers should examine the appropriateness and clarity of the research design, setting and participants, sampling, instruments, data collection procedures, research flow figure, data analysis, validity and reliability or qualitative trustworthiness, and ethical considerations, as applicable.

The methodology must provide sufficient information to evaluate the rigor of the research and understand how the study was conducted. Any inconsistencies between the research questions, methods, data, and analyses should be reported.

4.5. Results

The Results section must present findings clearly, objectively, systematically, and in direct response to all research questions.

For qualitative studies, assess the presentation of themes, key findings, and supporting evidence. For quantitative studies, examine descriptive statistics, relevant assumption tests, inferential analyses, effect sizes, and practical significance, where appropriate. For mixed-methods studies, assess the presentation and integration of quantitative and qualitative findings.

Tables and figures must be numbered, titled, cited in the text, and consistent with the reported data. The section should report findings without extended theoretical interpretation or comparisons with previous studies, which belong in the Discussion.

4.6. Discussion

The Discussion must use coherent paragraphs without subheadings, using Book Antiqua, 11 pt, and 1.15 line spacing.

Reviewers should assess whether the authors interpret the findings, explain them through relevant theories and context, compare them critically with at least 3–5 previous studies, address the research questions, and demonstrate a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge.

The discussion must go beyond repeating results. Interpretations should be supported by evidence and relevant literature, and claims must remain within the limits of the research design and findings.

4.7. Implication

The Implication section must consist of one coherent paragraph, using Book Antiqua, 11 pt, and 1.15 line spacing.

Reviewers should assess whether the theoretical, practical, and social implications are clearly derived from the findings and appropriately address educational practice, policy, or theory development. Unsupported claims and generic future research recommendations should be avoided.

4.8. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

This section must contain exactly two paragraphs, using Book Antiqua, 11 pt, and 1.15 line spacing.

The first paragraph must identify actual study limitations, such as those related to design, sampling, instruments, data collection, or analysis. The second must provide specific and relevant recommendations for further research based on those limitations. Both paragraphs must remain separate and avoid unsupported or generic statements.

4.9. Conclusion

The Conclusion must concisely address the research objectives or hypotheses and communicate the study’s central message. It must be consistent with the findings, avoid repeating the Results and Discussion, and introduce no new data, arguments, findings, or references.

The section must use Book Antiqua, 11 pt, and 1.15 line spacing.

4.10. Acknowledgment

The Acknowledgment section is optional. When included, it should recognize relevant individuals, institutions, organizations, or funding sources that provided substantial support. Reviewers should flag concerns regarding funding disclosures or potential conflicts of interest when relevant.

4.11. References and In-text Citations

References must be relevant, credible, accurate, and verifiable. The template requires at least 80% of references to come from international scholarly sources, particularly reputable international peer-reviewed journals, with priority given to relevant literature published within the preceding ten years. Essential seminal works may be included.

Reviewers should check citation-reference consistency, alphabetical ordering, hanging indents, and compliance with APA 6th Edition. DOI links must be verified and presented as active https://doi.org/ URLs whenever available. Sources must support the claims for which they are cited, and bibliographic information must not be fabricated.

4.12. Author’s Biography

Each author biography must contain 40–50 words, including educational background, current academic position, institutional affiliation, research interests or expertise, research contributions, and email address. The template specifies Book Antiqua, 10 pt, and single line spacing.

Reviewers should assess completeness, clarity, and consistency with the manuscript’s authorship information.

5. Overall Scientific Assessment

In addition to section-specific criteria, reviewers should determine whether the manuscript:

  • Fits the aims and scope of Edunesia.

  • Demonstrates originality and a meaningful scientific contribution.

  • Uses an appropriate and rigorous methodology.

  • Presents credible, transparent, and internally consistent findings.

  • Interprets results in relation to relevant theories and previous research.

  • Derives its implications and conclusions from the evidence.

  • Complies with applicable research ethics and publication integrity standards.

A previously investigated topic may still be publishable if the study provides a justified contribution beyond existing knowledge. Novelty should not rely solely on conducting research in a different location.

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other ethical violations must be reported to the editor. Similarity reports should be assessed contextually, and the editor is responsible for determining whether further investigation is required.

6. Preparing the Review Report

The review report should provide a balanced overall assessment, constructive comments, and a clear recommendation.

Major comments should address issues affecting originality, research gap, theoretical foundation, methodology, data analysis, interpretation, validity, or scientific contribution.

Minor comments should address clarity, terminology, grammar, tables, figures, references, and formatting.

Comments to authors must be specific, respectful, and actionable. Confidential comments to the editor may address publication suitability, ethical concerns, conflicts of interest, or matters requiring editorial judgment.

Reviewers should explain why a problem matters and, where possible, indicate how it can be addressed.

7. Recommendation for Editorial Decision

Reviewers may recommend the following decisions, subject to the options available in the Edunesia editorial system:

  • Accept: The manuscript meets the journal’s academic standards, with no substantive revisions required.

  • Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are needed.

  • Major Revision: Substantial improvements are required before publication suitability can be established.

  • Reject: Fundamental weaknesses, insufficient contribution, serious methodological problems, lack of scope relevance, or substantiated integrity concerns make the manuscript unsuitable for publication.

Every recommendation must be justified by clear academic reasoning. The final editorial decision rests with the editor.

8. Final Checklist and Submission

Before submitting the report, reviewers should confirm that they have assessed:

  • The manuscript’s scope, originality, and scientific contribution.

  • The title, abstracts, and keywords.

  • The Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion.

  • The Implication, Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research, and Conclusion.

  • The tables, figures, references, and author biographies.

  • Methodological rigor, research ethics, and publication integrity.

  • The distinction between major and minor comments.

  • The consistency between the review findings and the recommended decision.

Reviewers should submit their reports through the designated editorial system within the agreed period. Any newly identified conflict of interest or serious ethical concern must be communicated to the editor promptly.

Through fair, confidential, rigorous, and constructive peer review, reviewers help Edunesia maintain academic standards and strengthen the quality, transparency, and contribution of educational research.