slot gacor slot gacor hari ini slot gacor 2025 demo slot pg slot gacor slot gacor
Reviewer Guidelines At-Ta'lim : Media Informasi Pendidikan Islam

Reviewer Guidelines

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. AP-SMART shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewers own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Before reviewing, please pay attention to the following:

  • Is the article requested to be reviewed according to your expertise? If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not fit your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please recommend alternative reviews.
  • Do you have time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a longer period, notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.

 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?  What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting? Typically, the introduction should summarize the context of the relevant research, and explain the findings of the research or other findings, if any, offered for discussion. The introduction consists of a statement of the problem or purpose; the relevance of the topics; the importance of the topic; contribution to the literature; drawing and building upon relevant literature; and organization, and Novelty.
  • Method: does the author accurately describe how the data is collected? is the exposure design suitable for the answer to the question? have the tools and materials used been adequately explained? and does the article exposure describe what type of data is recorded; right in describing the measurement?
  • Result and Discussion: this is where the author must explain the findings of his/her research. It should be laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider whether the appropriate analysis has been carried out.
  • Research Implications and Contributions: (1) Research Implications. Do the authors accurately explain the implications of the research (practical, theoretical, managerial, and methodological implications); (2) Research Contribution. Does the author accurately explain the contribution of the research, the author can explain the contribution of research to science, especially Islamic education.
  • Recommendations for Future Research Directions: Does the author accurately explain the recommendations for future research directions, explaining the possibility of further development of the research conducted. And explain how future research can deepen, expand, or develop aspects that have not been studied in depth.
  • Conclusion: Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed? are the claims in this section supported by fair results and quite reasonable? does the author compare the research results with other previous ones? do the results of research written in the article contradict the previous theories? does the conclusion explain how better scientific research is to be followed up?
  • References: are the references well laid out according to the APA model? are the references styled by using a plagiarism checker application? Are the references mostly from the most recent article sources?
  • Tables and Pictures: If the manuscript includes tables or figures, what do they add to the manuscript? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous? Is it suitable with the referred explanation by showing data that is easy to interpret and understandable for the readers?
  • Writing Styles: Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?  All exposure should be in good Bahasa Indonesia or English and written in good, cohesive, and coherent grammar. It is easy to understand and interesting to read.
  • Mechanics: spelling, punctuation, and reference format.

 Final Review

  • All review results submitted by reviewers are confidential
  • If you would like to discuss the article with colleagues, please inform the editor
  • Do not contact the author directly.
  • Ethical issues: (1) Plagiarism: if you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please tell the editor in detail; (2) Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the category of fraud, but if you suspect the results in the article are incorrect, please notify the editor

Recommendations

After reviewing the article, please provide recommendations for authors and editors:

  • Accept Submissions (with or without minor revisions): This article is well researched and written and on topics important to the field and journal, without significant gaps in methodology or analysis. The article may require a little extra on its theoretical or scientific background, or it may need to be edited, but it does not require significant additional research or restructuring.
  • Revision required: The article is an important topic for the field and journal but requires some additional research or rewriting before it is worthy of publication. The review identifies some gaps in analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: or identifies the need for the article to undergo some reorganization or writing. However, reviewers are confident that the revision can be successfully completed under the supervision of the journal editor.
  • Resubmit for Review: The article addresses topics that are important to the field and journal, but require significant additional research or rewriting before they are suitable for publication. The review identifies some substantial gaps in analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: or identifies the need for the article to undergo significant reorganization or rewrite. Reviewers feel that these necessary revisions are significant enough that the article should be resubmitted for additional rounds of review.
  • Reject: The article addresses topics with limited relevance to fields and journals, and/or requires significant additional research or rewriting before they are eligible for publication. In the latter case, the review identifies several significant gaps in the analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: and/or identifies the need for the article to undergo significant reorganization or rewrite. Reviewers have little confidence that such revisions can be successfully completed within a reasonable time frame.

Complete the "Review" before the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendations for the article will be considered when the editor makes the final decision and your honest feedback is highly appreciated. When you write a comment, please show you a section of the comment that is only intended for the editor and a part that can be returned to the author.