Reviewer Guidelines

 

1. 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.

These guidelines are published openly so that authors, reviewers, and readers can all see the criteria by which a manuscript is qualified or rejected. They should be read together with the Peer Review Process and the Plagiarism Policy.

2. 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.

3. 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
  • Verify that the claims made in the manuscript are supported by the sources cited
  • Alert editors to any ethical concerns

4. Review Criteria

4.1 Originality and Significance (weight 25%)

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

4.2 Methodology (weight 30%)

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

4.3 Results and Discussion (weight 25%)

  • Are results clearly presented?
  • Are conclusions supported by evidence?
  • Does the discussion engage the current literature and state the contribution of the study?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?

4.4 Presentation and Clarity (weight 20%)

  • Is the manuscript well-organized?
  • Is language clear and concise?
  • Are figures and tables appropriate?
  • Are references accurate, verifiable, and current?

5. Criteria for Qualification and Rejection

5.1 A manuscript qualifies for publication when

  • the research question is clearly formulated and relevant to education and culture;
  • the method is appropriate to that question and described in enough detail to be reproduced;
  • the findings are supported by the data actually reported;
  • the discussion engages current literature and states what the study adds;
  • the references are accurate, verifiable, and drawn predominantly from the last ten years;
  • the manuscript observes the journal's ethical and similarity standards.

5.2 A manuscript is rejected when

  • it lies outside the focus and scope of the journal;
  • it presents no discernible novelty over existing published work;
  • the method cannot support the claims made;
  • the conclusions do not follow from the reported evidence;
  • data or references are fabricated, or citations cannot be verified;
  • plagiarism or unattributed text is present, as set out in the Plagiarism Policy;
  • the work is under review at, or already published by, another journal;
  • the revisions required would in effect amount to a new study;
  • substantive comments remain unaddressed after the second round of revision.

5.3 Converting your assessment into a recommendation

Score each criterion in section 4 from 0 to 100 and apply the weights. The weighted total maps to a recommendation as follows:

  • 85 to 100 — Accept: all criteria are met; no substantive change is needed.
  • 70 to 84 — Minor Revisions: findings and method are sound; remaining issues concern clarity, structure, referencing, or presentation, and can be settled without re-review.
  • 55 to 69 — Major Revisions: the study is worth pursuing, but the argument, the analysis, or the engagement with literature must be reworked; the revised version returns to you.
  • Below 55 — Reject: one or more conditions in section 5.2 apply.

The score guides the recommendation, it does not replace your judgment. Where your reasoned assessment differs from the band, state the reason in your comments to the editor.

6. 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 two independent reviewers. If the two reviewers reach conflicting recommendations, the editor-in-chief appoints a third independent reviewer, who evaluates the manuscript blindly, without knowledge of the prior reviewers' decisions. The final decision then follows the majority opinion of the three reviewers.

7. Writing the Review

7.1 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.

7.2 Recommendation Options

  • Accept: the manuscript meets all criteria in section 5.1 and is ready for publication.
  • Minor Revisions: acceptable after corrections that do not require re-review, to be completed within 2 weeks.
  • Major Revisions: substantive rework is required and the revised manuscript returns for re-review, to be completed within 4 weeks.
  • Reject: one or more conditions in section 5.2 apply, and revision would not resolve them.

8. Confidentiality and Ethics

  • Do not share manuscript content with others
  • Do not use unpublished information for personal research
  • Do not upload the manuscript or any part of it to generative AI tools, in line with the journal's Generative AI Policy
  • Destroy or return manuscripts after review
  • Declare conflicts of interest immediately
  • Maintain a professional and respectful tone

9. 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

10. Timeline and Availability

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

11. 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

12. Contact Information

For review-related questions or technical issues: