Reviewers Guidelines

Peer reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scholarly quality, integrity, and credibility of Urwatul Wutsqo: Jurnal Studi Kependidikan dan Keislaman. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and timely evaluations that assist editors in making editorial decisions and help authors improve their manuscripts.

1. General Evaluation

Reviewers should first evaluate the manuscript as a whole and determine whether it presents a coherent, relevant, and academically meaningful study within the scope of the journal.

Reviewers should consider whether:

• the manuscript is relevant to the focus and scope of the journal;
• the manuscript presents a coherent scholarly argument;
• the research problem and objectives are clearly defined;
• the manuscript demonstrates scholarly significance and contribution;
• the arguments are logically organized and supported by appropriate evidence; and
• the manuscript is presented in a clear and academically appropriate manner.

2. Title

The title should be concise, informative, and accurately reflect the principal focus of the manuscript. Reviewers should assess whether the title:

• accurately represents the content of the manuscript;
• clearly communicates the main topic or focus of the study;
• avoids unnecessary words and expressions;
• avoids unexplained abbreviations; and
• is consistent with the research problem, objectives, and findings.

3. Abstract and Keywords

The abstract should provide a concise and accurate representation of the manuscript. Reviewers should determine whether it appropriately presents the essential elements of the study, including:

• Purpose – the objective or purpose of the study;
• Method – the research approach and essential methodological information;
• Findings – the principal results or findings; and
• Recommendations/Implications – the principal implications or recommendations arising from the study.

Reviewers should also assess whether the keywords are relevant, specific, and representative of the main concepts discussed in the manuscript.

4. Introduction

The Introduction should establish a clear scholarly foundation for the research. Reviewers should evaluate whether it appropriately presents:

• the background and significance of the study;
• relevant previous research and the current state of knowledge;
• a clear research gap, unresolved issue, inconsistency, or problem;
• the novelty or scholarly contribution expected from the study;
• the research problem or research questions, where applicable;
• the approach or perspective used to address the problem; and
• clear research objectives.

The literature used should be relevant to the topic and sufficiently current to represent the development of the field, while foundational or classical sources may be used where academically appropriate.

5. Research Method

The Method section should provide sufficient information for readers to understand how the research was conducted and how the findings were obtained.

Reviewers should assess whether:

• the research design or approach is appropriate to the research objectives;
• the research procedures are clearly described rather than merely defining methodological terms;
• the research setting, participants, subjects, informants, population, or sample are appropriately explained;
• data sources and research instruments are clearly identified where applicable;
• data collection procedures are adequately described;
• data analysis techniques are appropriate and sufficiently explained;
• validity, reliability, credibility, or trustworthiness procedures are addressed where relevant; and
• ethical considerations are reported where required by the nature of the research.

6. Results

The Results section should clearly present the principal findings derived from the research. Reviewers should evaluate whether:

• the findings correspond to the research objectives or questions;
• the data have been appropriately analyzed and are not presented merely as unexplained raw data;
• the findings are presented clearly and systematically;
• tables and figures, where used, are relevant, readable, and appropriately explained;
• the same information is not unnecessarily duplicated in text, tables, and figures; and
• sufficient evidence is provided to support the findings and subsequent conclusions.

7. Discussion

The Discussion should interpret and explain the significance of the findings rather than merely restating the Results section. Reviewers should consider whether:

• the findings are interpreted scientifically and logically;
• the discussion answers the research problem, questions, or objectives;
• the findings are connected to relevant theories or conceptual perspectives;
• the findings are critically compared with relevant previous studies;
• agreements, differences, or contradictions with previous research are appropriately explained;
• the manuscript demonstrates its novelty, contribution, or added value to existing knowledge;
• the theoretical and/or practical implications of the findings are discussed;
• limitations are acknowledged where relevant; and
• potential directions for further research are identified where appropriate.

8. Conclusion

The Conclusion should provide a concise synthesis of the principal findings and directly address the research objectives or questions. Reviewers should assess whether:

• the conclusion is supported by the findings presented in the manuscript;
• it clearly answers the research objectives or problem;
• it does not introduce unsupported new findings;
• the scholarly contribution or significance of the study is evident; and
• implications, recommendations, limitations, or future research directions are included where appropriate.

The conclusion should generally be presented as coherent paragraphs rather than merely as a repetition of findings or a list of bullet points.

9. References and Citations

Reviewers should assess the relevance, adequacy, and integrity of the manuscript's references. In particular, reviewers should consider whether:

• the references are relevant to the subject of the manuscript;
• important and reasonably current scholarly literature has been considered;
• appropriate foundational sources are included where necessary;
• claims requiring scholarly support are appropriately cited;
• in-text citations correspond with entries in the reference list;
• citations and references generally comply with APA 7th Edition; and
• there are indications of fabricated, irrelevant, misleading, or unverifiable references.

10. Writing, Organization, and Length

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript is written clearly, concisely, and logically. Where necessary, reviewers may identify sections that should be expanded, clarified, condensed, reorganized, combined, or removed.

Language-related comments should focus on whether writing problems affect scholarly clarity and understanding. Reviewers are not expected to function solely as language editors or proofreaders.

11. Tables, Figures, and Supporting Materials

Tables, figures, and other supporting materials should contribute meaningfully to the manuscript. Reviewers should assess their relevance, clarity, consistency with the text, appropriate numbering and labeling, and whether the information presented accurately supports the research findings.

12. Originality and Research Integrity

Reviewers should remain alert to potential concerns regarding plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, citation manipulation, inappropriate authorship, ethical violations, or substantial similarity with previously published work.

If reviewers identify or reasonably suspect research or publication misconduct, the concern should be reported confidentially to the editor with sufficient explanation or supporting information. Reviewers should not independently contact or accuse the authors.

13. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, publicly discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content without authorization from the journal.

Information, arguments, data, or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, professional, academic, or commercial advantage.

14. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, collaborative, competitive, or other relationship that could reasonably affect—or be perceived to affect—their impartiality.

When a significant conflict of interest exists, reviewers should inform the editor and decline the review assignment.

15. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)

Reviewers must comply with the journal's Generative AI Policy. Confidential manuscripts, unpublished research data, or identifiable manuscript information must not be uploaded to publicly accessible Generative AI systems or other services that could compromise confidentiality.

Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's own scholarly evaluation, critical judgment, or responsibility for the review report. Reviewers remain fully accountable for the accuracy, appropriateness, and integrity of the comments they submit.

16. Writing the Review Report

Reviewer comments should be specific, constructive, respectful, and sufficiently detailed to help both the editor and author understand the basis of the evaluation.

Review Component	Expected Content
Overall Assessment	A concise evaluation of the manuscript's quality, relevance, originality, and contribution.
Major Comments	Substantive issues concerning research design, methodology, findings, interpretation, contribution, or other matters affecting scholarly quality.
Minor Comments	Specific improvements concerning clarity, organization, terminology, citations, tables, figures, or presentation.
Confidential Comments	Ethical concerns, conflicts, suspected misconduct, or other information intended only for the editor should be communicated confidentially.

17. Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the assessment, reviewers should provide one of the recommendation options available in the journal's OJS workflow:

Accept Submission	The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
Revisions Required	The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication after specified revisions have been satisfactorily completed.
Resubmit for Review	Substantial revision is necessary and the revised manuscript should undergo another round of review.
Decline Submission	The manuscript has substantial concerns that make it unsuitable for publication in its current form.