Reviewer Guidelines

Journal of Schooling and Pesantren Studies (JSPS) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to maintain academic quality, originality, and scholarly integrity. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Initial Considerations Before Review

  1. Expertise Compatibility
    Reviewers should ensure that the assigned manuscript matches their academic expertise and scholarly competence.
  2. Review Availability
    The review process should normally be completed within two weeks after manuscript assignment. Reviewers who require additional time should contact the editorial office.
  3. Conflict of Interest
    Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest related to the manuscript, author(s), or institution(s).
  4. Plagiarism and Ethical Concerns
    Any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, or ethical misconduct should be reported immediately to the editorial team.

Review Process

  1. Title
    Evaluate whether the title clearly reflects the content and focus of the manuscript.
  2. Abstract
    Assess whether the abstract adequately summarizes the objectives, methods, findings, and conclusions of the study.
  3. Introduction
    Ensure the introduction contains adequate background information, research problems, literature review, research gap, and study objectives.
  4. Compliance with Journal Guidelines
    Verify whether the manuscript follows the JSPS writing and formatting guidelines.

Content Evaluation

  1. Determine whether the manuscript provides sufficient scholarly contribution compared to previous publications in the field.
  2. Evaluate the novelty, originality, theoretical depth, and significance of the manuscript.
  3. Assess the contribution of the study to educational research, schooling studies, pesantren studies, or Islamic education scholarship.
  4. Examine whether the theories, concepts, and references used are relevant and academically appropriate.

Methodological Evaluation

  1. Assess whether the research design and data collection procedures are described clearly and systematically.
  2. Determine whether the methods appropriately address the research questions.
  3. Evaluate the clarity and validity of analytical procedures.
  4. If new or modified methods are introduced, ensure that they are explained comprehensively.

Results and Discussion

The results should clearly present the research findings in a logical and coherent manner. The discussion should critically interpret the findings, connect them with relevant theories and previous studies, and demonstrate the academic implications of the study. Reviewers should assess whether the analysis conducted is appropriate, rigorous, and adequately supported by data.

Conclusion

The conclusion should provide concise answers to the research objectives and summarize the major findings without repeating the discussion section. Recommendations should be relevant to the research findings and contribute to future scholarly development or practical implementation.

Tables and Figures

Tables, figures, charts, and diagrams should be relevant to the article content, properly numbered, clearly titled, and supported by accurate reference sources when applicable.

References

Reviewers should ensure that all references cited in the manuscript appear in the reference list and follow APA Style (7th Edition).

  • References should primarily consist of recent scholarly publications.
  • At least 80% of references should derive from journal articles.
  • The majority of references should be published within the last 10 years.
  • Authors are strongly encouraged to use reference management software such as Mendeley or Zotero.

Writing Quality

Manuscripts should be written in clear, academic, and grammatically appropriate English. Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive suggestions regarding clarity, coherence, readability, and academic writing quality.

Final Recommendation

At the end of the review process, reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accepted
    The manuscript is suitable for publication without revision.
  2. Accepted with Minor Revisions
    The manuscript requires small improvements before publication.
  3. Accepted with Major Revisions
    The manuscript requires substantial revision regarding theory, analysis, structure, or interpretation before reconsideration.
  4. Rejected
    The manuscript does not meet the academic standards or scope of the journal.