Review Guidelines

MANAGIERE: Journal of Islamic Educational Management, published by Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Haji Achmad Siddiq Jember, applies a double-blind peer-review process involving at least two independent expert reviewers. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another.

These guidelines support fair, constructive, and consistent manuscript evaluation. Reviewers provide recommendations; the editors make the final publication decision.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Expertise: Accept an invitation only when you have sufficient expertise to assess the manuscript. Inform the editorial office if any aspect falls outside your expertise.
Timeliness: Complete the review within two weeks of accepting the invitation. Notify the editorial office promptly if additional time is needed or you cannot complete the assignment.
Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationship that could affect impartiality. Decline the assignment when a conflict prevents an independent assessment.
Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts, supporting files, and review reports as confidential. Do not share them or involve another person in the review without prior editorial permission. Do not use unpublished information for personal advantage.
Objectivity: Evaluate scholarly merit and provide clear reasons for your assessment. Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory comments, and unsupported judgments.
Research Integrity: Report suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship, or other ethical concerns confidentially to the editor. Provide supporting evidence where possible and do not contact the authors directly.
Responsible Citation: Recommend additional references only when they are relevant and necessary. Do not request citations primarily to increase your own citation count or that of a particular journal.
Artificial Intelligence: Follow the journal’s Artificial Intelligence Policy. Do not upload confidential manuscripts or review materials to external AI services or delegate scholarly judgment to automated tools.

Evaluation Criteria

1. Relevance, Structure, and Presentation

Assess whether:

The manuscript fits the journal’s focus and scope.
The title accurately reflects its content.
The abstract clearly summarises its purpose, approach, principal findings or arguments, and contribution.
The introduction establishes the problem, relevant literature, research gap, and objectives or questions.
The organisation and presentation follow the author guidelines and suit the manuscript type.

2. Originality and Contribution

Evaluate the originality and significance of the manuscript’s contribution to Islamic educational management.

Consider whether the work advances theory, offers credible empirical insights, critically synthesises existing knowledge, or provides well-supported implications for policy and practice. Claims of novelty should be demonstrated through engagement with relevant scholarship.

3. Methodology or Analytical Approach

Apply criteria appropriate to the manuscript type:

Empirical Research: Assess the research design, setting, sampling or participant selection, data collection, analysis, and relevant ethical procedures. Examine validity and reliability or qualitative credibility and reflexivity, as applicable.
Conceptual and Theoretical Articles: Assess conceptual clarity, logical coherence, the basis for selecting and interpreting literature, and the strength of the theoretical contribution.
Review Articles: Assess transparency of literature sources, search procedures where applicable, selection criteria, and synthesis methods.

Identify limitations that affect the credibility or interpretation of the work.

4. Findings, Analysis, and Discussion

Assess whether findings or arguments are clearly organised and supported by evidence.

The discussion should connect the contribution to relevant theories and previous research, address alternative interpretations where appropriate, acknowledge limitations, and avoid conclusions that exceed the evidence.

5. Conclusion and Implications

Assess whether the conclusion answers the stated objectives or questions and clearly identifies the principal contribution.

Recommendations should follow from the evidence or analysis. The conclusion should avoid unnecessary repetition and should not introduce unsupported claims or new findings.

6. Tables, Figures, and Supporting Materials

Check that tables and figures are relevant, legible, appropriately labelled, and discussed in the text.

Assess consistency with the manuscript’s findings and ensure that reused or adapted materials include appropriate sources and permissions where required.

7. References

Assess the relevance, accuracy, and adequacy of references and their consistency with APA style.

Authors should prioritise current scholarship, preferably from the last ten years, while retaining relevant foundational works. At least 80% of references should be journal articles. Any justified departure from this proportion should be explained to the editor, particularly where the study requires primary policy documents, historical sources, or foundational books.

Report apparent citation errors or references that do not support the associated claims.

8. Writing Quality

Assess clarity, coherence, terminology, and academic presentation in English or Indonesian, consistent with the journal’s accepted submission languages.

Distinguish language issues that can be resolved through editing from substantive weaknesses in research or argumentation.

Preparing the Review Report

Provide:

A brief assessment of the manuscript’s contribution and principal strengths.
Major comments addressing issues that affect validity, interpretation, originality, or suitability for publication.
Minor comments addressing presentation, terminology, formatting, or local corrections.
A clear recommendation supported by the review.

Make comments specific and actionable, referring to sections, pages, tables, or figures where useful. Submit sensitive ethical concerns through the confidential comments to the editor.

Final Recommendation

Select one of the following:

Accept: Suitable for publication without substantive revision.
Minor Revision: Requires limited changes that do not substantially affect the central analysis or conclusions.
Major Revision: Requires substantial changes before suitability for publication can be determined.
Reject: Contains fundamental weaknesses or falls outside the journal’s scope.

A recommendation is advisory. The editors determine the final decision and may seek additional review when necessary.

Submission and Further Review

Submit the report through the journal’s online review system using the official review form. Keep reviewer identity out of comments and attachments intended for authors.

Reviewers may be invited to assess a revised manuscript and the authors’ point-by-point response. Further assessment should focus on whether the identified concerns have been adequately addressed and whether revisions introduce any substantive issues.

Review Procedure Tutorial

Watch the review procedure tutorial.

Review Guidelines