Reviewers Guidelines

Peer reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, and credibility of Irsyaduna: Jurnal Studi Kemahasiswaan. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful evaluations that assist both editors in making editorial decisions and authors in improving their manuscripts.

1. General Evaluation

Reviewers should first evaluate the manuscript as a whole. The manuscript should present a coherent scholarly argument, demonstrate relevance to the aims and scope of the journal, and make a meaningful contribution to the field.

Reviewers should consider whether:

• The topic is relevant to the scope of Irsyaduna: Jurnal Studi Kemahasiswaan;
• The manuscript presents a clear and coherent argument;
• The research problem is academically significant;
• The manuscript demonstrates originality or a meaningful contribution to existing scholarship;
• The ideas are presented logically and systematically; and
• The manuscript is written in clear and appropriate academic language.

2. Title

The title should accurately represent the main focus of the manuscript. Reviewers should assess whether the title is concise, informative, specific, and consistent with the research conducted.

Unnecessary words, uncommon abbreviations, overly general expressions, and claims that are not supported by the study should be avoided.

3. Abstract and Keywords

The abstract should provide an accurate and concise representation of the manuscript. Reviewers should evaluate whether it clearly presents:

• The purpose of the study;
• The research method or approach;
• The principal findings; and
• The implications or recommendations arising from the study.

The abstract should be understandable independently from the main text and should accurately reflect the research reported in the manuscript. Keywords should appropriately represent the main topics and concepts of the article.

4. Introduction

The Introduction should establish a clear scholarly rationale for the study. Reviewers should assess whether it adequately presents:

• The background and context of the research;
• Relevant and recent scholarly literature;
• The current state of knowledge related to the topic;
• A clear research gap, unresolved problem, inconsistency, or scholarly issue;
• The novelty or expected contribution of the study;
• The research problem or research questions, where applicable; and
• The objectives of the research.

Particular attention should be given to whether the claimed novelty is supported by an appropriate engagement with previous research rather than merely asserted by the authors.

5. Research Method

The Method section should provide sufficient information to understand how the study was conducted and to assess the appropriateness, reliability, and validity of the research process.

Depending on the research approach, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript adequately explains:

• The research approach and design;
• The research setting or location;
• The population, sample, participants, subjects, or informants;
• The sampling or participant selection procedures, where applicable;
• The research instruments or data sources;
• The data collection procedures;
• The data analysis techniques;
• Procedures for establishing validity, reliability, or trustworthiness; and
• Relevant ethical considerations.

The method should not merely provide definitions of methodological terms. It should clearly explain what the researchers actually did during the research process.

6. Results

The Results section should present the research findings clearly, systematically, and in accordance with the research objectives or questions.

Reviewers should assess whether:

• The findings are supported by appropriate data or evidence;
• The results directly address the research objectives or questions;
• Data have been appropriately processed and analyzed rather than presented merely as raw data;
• Tables and figures are relevant, readable, and appropriately explained;
• Information is not unnecessarily duplicated between text, tables, and figures; and
• The findings are presented without unsupported claims or overinterpretation.

7. Discussion

The Discussion is expected to provide critical scholarly interpretation rather than simply repeat the research findings. Reviewers should carefully assess the depth and quality of this section.

The Discussion should:

• Interpret and explain the meaning of the principal findings;
• Relate the findings to the research questions and objectives;
• Compare the findings with relevant previous studies;
• Explain agreements, differences, or contradictions with existing literature;
• Connect the findings with relevant theories or established knowledge;
• Explain the scholarly significance of the findings;
• Identify theoretical, practical, educational, or other relevant implications;
• Acknowledge important limitations of the study where appropriate; and
• Identify reasonable directions for further research when relevant.

8. Conclusion

The Conclusion should directly correspond to the objectives and principal findings of the study. Reviewers should evaluate whether the conclusion:

• Provides a clear answer to the research objectives or questions;
• Accurately reflects the principal findings;
• Does not introduce new findings that were not discussed previously;
• Avoids claims that extend beyond the evidence presented;
• Identifies relevant implications or recommendations where appropriate; and
• Is presented concisely in paragraph form.

9. References and Citations

Reviewers should assess the relevance, adequacy, currency, and scholarly quality of the references used to support the manuscript.

Reviewers should consider whether:

• The manuscript engages with relevant and credible scholarly literature;
• Important claims are appropriately supported by references;
• Recent research relevant to the topic has been adequately considered;
• The references are relevant to the arguments presented;
• There is excessive reliance on textbooks or non-scholarly sources; and
• Citations and references appear consistent with the journal's required APA 7th Edition style.

Reviewers may recommend relevant literature that has been genuinely overlooked, but should not require authors to cite the reviewer's own publications or particular journals unless such references are clearly necessary for improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

10. Tables, Figures, and Supporting Materials

Tables, figures, graphs, and other supporting materials should contribute meaningfully to the presentation of the research. Reviewers should assess their clarity, relevance, accuracy, readability, and consistency with the information presented in the manuscript.

Reviewers should identify unnecessary duplication, unclear labels, unsupported data, or visual materials that do not contribute to understanding the findings.

11. Originality and Research Integrity

Reviewers should remain attentive to potential concerns involving plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, questionable citations, unethical research practices, or other forms of academic misconduct.

If a reviewer identifies or reasonably suspects a potential ethical problem, the concern should be communicated confidentially to the Editor with sufficient explanation. Reviewers should not directly investigate or accuse the authors of misconduct.

12. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

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

Reviewers should decline the review or promptly inform the Editor when a personal, professional, financial, institutional, or other relationship may reasonably affect their impartiality.

13. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)

Reviewers must comply with the journal's Generative AI Policy. Submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, participant information, or other confidential materials must not be uploaded to publicly accessible Generative AI tools.

GenAI must not be used as a substitute for the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment, manuscript evaluation, or recommendation. The reviewer remains personally responsible for the content and integrity of the review submitted to the journal.

14. Writing the Review Report

Review reports should be constructive, specific, and academically justified. Comments should focus on the manuscript rather than the authors and should clearly distinguish between major concerns and minor corrections.

15. Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the evaluation, reviewers should provide a recommendation through the journal's online review system. Depending on the available OJS options, the recommendation may include:

• Accept Submission – the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision;
• Revisions Required – the manuscript requires limited revisions that can be evaluated without a complete new review;
• Resubmit for Review – substantial revisions are required and the revised manuscript should undergo another review round; or
• Decline Submission – the manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor after considering the review reports, the manuscript, author revisions, journal policies, and relevant ethical considerations.