Reviewer Guidelines

 

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer for Tunjuk Ajar: Journal of Education and Culture. Your expertise and constructive feedback are essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of our publications.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Tunjuk Ajar: Journal of Education and Culture operates a double-blind peer review process. Throughout the review, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

  • The manuscript you receive has been anonymized: author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding details, and self-identifying citations have been removed by the editorial office.
  • Do not attempt to identify the authors of the manuscript by any means, including searching for the title, abstract, or distinctive phrases online.
  • To preserve your anonymity, do not include your name, affiliation, or any identifying information in your comments to the authors, and do not sign your review.
  • If the author's identity becomes apparent to you (for example, through self-citation or residual identifying details), inform the editor and assess whether a conflict of interest exists before proceeding.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide objective, fair, and constructive assessments
  • Respect the double-blind process by keeping author and reviewer identities confidential
  • Maintain confidentiality of the review process
  • Declare any conflicts of interest
  • Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe
  • Identify relevant published work not cited by authors
  • Alert editors to any ethical concerns

Review Criteria

Originality and Significance

  • Does the work present novel concepts or approaches?
  • Is the research question significant?
  • Does it contribute to the field?

Methodology

  • Is the research design appropriate?
  • Are methods clearly described and reproducible?
  • Is data analysis appropriate and rigorous?

Results and Discussion

  • Are results clearly presented?
  • Are conclusions supported by evidence?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?

Presentation and Clarity

  • Is the manuscript well-organized?
  • Is language clear and concise?
  • Are figures and tables appropriate?

Review Process

  1. Receive a review invitation with the abstract and anonymized manuscript details
  2. Accept or decline within 3 days
  3. Complete the review within 3 weeks (21 days) of acceptance
  4. Submit detailed comments and a recommendation, keeping your identity undisclosed to the authors
  5. Receive confirmation and acknowledgment

Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent reviewers. If the two reviewers reach conflicting recommendations, a third independent reviewer may be appointed; the third reviewer evaluates the manuscript blindly, without knowledge of the prior reviewers' decisions.

Writing the Review

Structure Your Review

  • Summary: Brief overview of the manuscript
  • Major Comments: Substantive issues affecting validity
  • Minor Comments: Specific suggestions for improvement
  • Confidential Comments: For editors only (if any)

Please ensure your comments to the authors contain no information that could reveal your identity.

Recommendation Options

  • Accept: Manuscript is suitable for publication
  • Minor Revisions: Accept after minor corrections
  • Major Revisions: Requires significant changes and re-review
  • Reject: Manuscript is not suitable for publication

Confidentiality and Ethics

  • Do not share manuscript content with others
  • Do not use unpublished information for personal research
  • Destroy or return manuscripts after review
  • Declare conflicts of interest immediately
  • Maintain a professional and respectful tone

Conflict of Interest

Because this journal uses double-blind review, you will not normally know the authors' identities. However, if you recognize or suspect the authors' identity during the review, notify the editor and decline the assignment when any of the following may apply:

  • Recent collaboration with the suspected authors
  • A personal relationship with the suspected authors
  • Financial interests in the research
  • Academic competition with the suspected authors
  • A shared institutional affiliation with the suspected authors

Timeline and Availability

  • Initial response to invitation: 3 days
  • Review completion: 3 weeks (21 days)
  • Extension requests: Contact editor in advance
  • Update availability in reviewer profile

Reviewer Recognition

  • Certificate of appreciation annually
  • Acknowledgment in journal issues (without linking reviewers to specific manuscripts)
  • Priority consideration for editorial board membership
  • Discounts on publication fees for your submissions

Contact Information

For review-related questions or technical issues: