JIPSINDO
Journal Policies
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines · JIPSINDO
How to review for JIPSINDO.
Before you accept, what to assess, how to write the report, and how to behave as a reviewer.
01About reviewing for JIPSINDO▾
Reviewers help the editors decide and help authors improve their work. JIPSINDO (Jurnal Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial Indonesia) uses single-blind review with at least two reviewers for research articles. These guidelines follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practice on peer review processes.
| Response to invitation | Promptly, even when declining |
| Time for the review | 21 days |
| Re-review of a revision | Usually shorter; the editor gives the date |
| Where | Through the journal system (OJS) |
02Before you accept▾
— Expertise: accept only if the manuscript is in your field and you can assess it competently. If you can assess only part of it, tell the editor.
— Time: accept only if you can finish within 21 days. If you need more time, ask before accepting.
— Conflicts of interest: decline if you have one, or declare it to the editor. See Reviewer Competing Interests.
— Prior review: tell the editor if you have reviewed the same manuscript for another journal.
— If you decline, suggesting other qualified reviewers is welcome.
03Confidentiality and AI▾
— Treat the manuscript as confidential. Do not share it or discuss it without the editor’s permission.
— Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools, and do not use AI to write your report. See AI in Peer Review.
— Do not try to identify the authors, and do not contact them.
— Do not use information from the manuscript for your own work. See Peer Review Confidentiality.
04Step by step in the journal system▾
1. Open the invitation email and follow the link, or log in to the journal website and go to Submissions > My Assigned.
2. Request: read the title and abstract, check the review deadline, and accept or decline. Declare any competing interest here.
3. Guidelines: read these guidelines and the journal’s review instructions.
4. Download & review: download the manuscript and any supplementary files. Write your comments in the two boxes: for author and editor, and for editor only. You may also upload an annotated file; remove your name from its properties first.
5. Recommendation: choose your recommendation and submit the review.
6. You will receive a confirmation and, later, the editor’s decision.
7. If you need an extension, write to the editor before the deadline. Extensions are short and agreed case by case.
05What to assess▾
| Scope and contribution | Does the manuscript fit the Focus and Scope, and does it add something new to social studies education? |
| Title and abstract | Do they reflect the content accurately? |
| Introduction and literature | Is the problem clear? Is the literature current and relevant, and is the gap stated? |
| Methods | Are the design, data, and analysis suitable, described clearly enough to be repeated, and ethically sound? For systematic reviews, is a reporting standard such as PRISMA 2020 followed? |
| Results and discussion | Are the findings supported by the data? Are they interpreted in the light of the literature, with limitations stated? |
| Conclusion | Does it follow from the results, and are implications for theory, practice, or policy given? |
| Ethics | Approval and consent for research with people, protection of participants, declarations of funding, conflicts, and AI use. |
| References | More than 25, mostly recent peer-reviewed articles, in APA 7th style, and cited accurately. See Reference Style. |
| Presentation | Clarity of English, structure, tables, and figures. |
06By type of manuscript▾
| Original research, quantitative | Clear hypotheses or research questions; valid and reliable instruments; adequate sample and sampling; appropriate statistical tests, with effect sizes where relevant; results reported fully in tables, not raw software output. |
| Original research, qualitative | Clear research questions and approach (for example case study, ethnography, phenomenology); how participants and sites were chosen; data collection and analysis described step by step; credibility and trustworthiness; reflexivity; quotations that support the claims. |
| Mixed methods | Why both approaches are needed; how the data are integrated; whether the conclusions draw on both strands. |
| Systematic literature review | A clear question; a reproducible search (databases, dates, search strings); inclusion and exclusion criteria; screening shown in a PRISMA 2020 flow diagram; quality appraisal of included studies; synthesis that goes beyond description. |
| Book review | Only editorial review is normally used. If asked, assess whether the review describes the book accurately, evaluates it critically, and places it in the literature. |
07Writing the report▾
1. Start with a short summary of the manuscript and its main claims, to show how you understood it.
2. Give your overall assessment: strengths and main weaknesses.
3. List major comments: problems that affect the validity or contribution, with specific suggestions.
4. List minor comments: wording, presentation, references, with page or line numbers.
5. Put confidential comments for the editor in the separate field, not in the comments to authors.
6. Choose a recommendation: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or decline. The recommendation should match the comments.
Good and poor comments
| Poor | “The methodology is weak.” |
| Good | “The reliance on a single colonial newspaper limits the claim about ‘public opinion in Java’ in the conclusion. Please either justify the transferability or narrow the claim, and discuss this in the limitations.” |
| Poor | “The literature is outdated.” |
| Good | “Section 2 relies mainly on sources before 2015. Recent work on multicultural education in Indonesian schools should be considered, so that the gap is stated against current research.” |
08Choosing a recommendation▾
| Accept | Sound, original, and clearly written. Only copyediting is needed. Rare at the first round. |
| Minor revisions | Sound and original. Small changes to clarity, presentation, references, or minor analysis are needed. You do not need to see it again. |
| Major revisions | Potentially publishable, but needs substantial work: further analysis, rewriting of key sections, stronger framing, or added data. You will normally see it again. |
| Decline | Serious flaws that cannot be fixed by revision, outside the scope, no clear contribution, or ethical problems. |
Your recommendation advises the editor. The decision is the editor’s, based on all the reviews. See Editorial Decisions.
09Checklist before you submit the review▾
1. I have no undeclared competing interest.
2. I have not uploaded the manuscript to any AI tool or shared it.
3. My report starts with a summary and covers the points in section 05.
4. Every major criticism gives a reason and a suggestion.
5. My comments to authors contain nothing that identifies me.
6. Confidential remarks are in the box for the editor only.
7. My recommendation matches my comments.
8. I am submitting within the deadline, or have agreed an extension.
10Tone and conduct▾
— Be objective, specific, and courteous. Comment on the work, not on the authors.
— Support criticism with reasons and, where possible, evidence or references.
— Do not ask authors to cite your own work, or the journal’s, without a genuine scholarly reason. See Peer Review Manipulation.
— Respect different methods and perspectives; judge the manuscript on its own terms.
— Editors may edit comments that are inappropriate. See Editing Peer Reviews.
11Suspected misconduct▾
If you suspect plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, duplicate publication, undisclosed AI use, or ethical problems, tell the editor in the confidential comments, with the evidence. Do not investigate yourself and do not contact the authors. See Research Misconduct.
12Re-review and recognition▾
— Use the same standards as in the first round, and do not raise new major points unless the revision created them.
— Say clearly which comments have been addressed and which have not.
— When a revision comes back, check whether your comments have been addressed, using the authors’ response letter.
— Reviewers are thanked by name, by issue, on the reviewer list, and may ask for a certificate of reviewing.
13Generative AI▾
Do not upload the manuscript, any part of it, or your report to a generative AI tool, and do not use AI to assess the work or write the review. Standard spell-checkers in word processors are not considered generative AI. See AI in Peer Review.
