Reviewer Guide

Thank you for agreeing to review for Arsya Insight Journal of Teaching and Learning. Peer review is a critical component of the academic publishing process, ensuring the scientific rigor, originality, and clarity of published papers.

1. Ethical Guidelines & Principles

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. You must not share, discuss, or use the content or data from the manuscript before publication.

  • Conflict of Interest: Please decline the review request immediately if you have any personal, financial, academic, or professional conflict of interest with any of the authors or their institutions.

  • Objectivity & Constructive Feedback: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Comments should be supported by clear reasoning and written in a constructive, polite, and encouraging tone.

  • Timeliness: If you accept the invitation, please complete the review within the specified timeframe (usually 2 to 3 weeks). If you foresee any delay, please inform the Editorial Team immediately.

2. Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a submission, please evaluate the manuscript based on the following key aspects:

  1. Originality & Significance: Does the paper contribute new insights, innovative methodologies, or practical solutions to the field of teaching and learning?

  2. Relevance to Scope: Does the manuscript align with the journal's focus and scope?

  3. Literature Review: Is the theoretical framework adequate? Are the cited references relevant, up-to-date, and properly cited?

  4. Methodology: Is the research design appropriate, rigorous, and clearly described so that it can be replicated?

  5. Results & Discussion: Are the data clearly presented and accurately analyzed? Does the discussion connect findings back to existing literature and explain their pedagogical implications?

  6. Clarity & Language: Is the manuscript well-structured, logical, and written in clear academic English/Indonesian?

3. Review Recommendations

At the end of your evaluation, please select one of the following recommendations on the OJS portal:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is ready for publication without any further changes.

  • Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor revisions (e.g., minor language edits, minor clarification of data) that can be reviewed by the editor without re-reviewing.

  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revisions (e.g., re-analysis of data, rewriting major sections). It will undergo a second round of peer review after resubmission.

  • Decline Submission: The manuscript lacks scientific rigor, novelty, or falls significantly outside the journal’s scope.

4. Structure of the Review Report

Please structure your review comments in OJS as follows:

  1. Summary: Briefly summarize the core objective, main findings, and overall value of the paper (2–3 sentences).

  2. Major Comments: Specific issues regarding novelty, methodology, logical consistency, or interpretation of results that must be addressed.

  3. Minor Comments: Minor corrections such as typos, formatting issues, reference errors, or requests for minor clarifications.