GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWER

Indonesian Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning (IJITL) Peer Reviewers are experts in their fields and are responsible for the content review process of articles. Their role is to make recommendations for accepting or rejecting manuscripts and to attract high-quality manuscripts. IJITL has established a policy on editor guidelines based on the following authoritative sources:

Duties of Reviewers:
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
Peer review supports the IJITL editor in making informed editorial decisions and helps authors improve their manuscripts through constructive feedback. As a cornerstone of formal scholarly communication, peer review is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the scientific process. In addition to assessing the scientific merit of a manuscript, reviewers should remain vigilant for potential ethical concerns such as plagiarism, redundant publication, or unacknowledged prior work and report these to the editor. Reviews should be conducted fairly, respectfully, and with professional courtesy.

2. Standards of Objectivity:
Reviews must be objective, with observations clearly formulated and supported by evidence or arguments that authors can use to improve their manuscripts. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

3. Acknowledgement of Sources:
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that authors have not cited. Any observation, derivation, or argument previously reported in other publications should be properly referenced. Reviewers must also inform the IJITL editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published or unpublished work of which they have personal knowledge.

4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors.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 personal advantage. This applies equally to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the IJITL editor before agreeing to review a manuscript and discuss whether recusal is necessary due to potential bias. Examples of conflicts include (but are not limited to) recent collaborations (within the past three years) with the authors, shared institutional affiliations, or close personal relationships.

If a reviewer suggests that an author cite the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be based on genuine scientific reasons, not with the intention of inflating citation counts or enhancing visibility.

5. Promptness:
Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to evaluate the manuscript or who cannot complete the review promptly should notify the IJITL editors immediately and decline the invitation, allowing alternative reviewers to be contacted.

6. Confidentiality:
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the manuscript or details about it with anyone else or contact the authors directly without permission from the IJITL editor. Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the peer review process, including compliance with the journal’s policy on the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in peer review.
While some editors may encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing, reviewers should first consult the IJITL editor to ensure confidentiality is maintained and that all participants receive appropriate credit. Unpublished material in manuscripts must not be used in reviewers’ own research without explicit written consent from the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage.

7. The Use of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies in the Journal Peer Review Process:
The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (such as ChatGPT, Bard, Gemini, Claude, and similar tools) in peer review must comply with IJITL’s ethical standards, emphasizing confidentiality, personal responsibility, transparency, and integrity. Reviewers must not use these tools to generate review content or to produce summaries of manuscripts.

These policies aim to provide greater transparency and guidance to authors, reviewers, editors, readers and contributors. Editorial will monitor this development and will adjust or refine policies when appropriate of IJITL (Visit the generative AI policies for journals page to review our generative AI policy for reviewers).

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:

  • 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.
  • 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 teaching and learning.
  • Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research Directions: (1) Does the author accurately explain the things that are limitations regarding the focus of the discussion (objectives), the data collection process, the sample/subject of the study, the time and logistical limitations faced by researchers when conducting research. (2) 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.