Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for agreeing to review for the International Journal of Mathematics and Sciences Education (IJMSEd), published by Nashir Al-Kutub Indonesia Publisher. IJMSEd is committed to a rigorous, transparent, and timely double-blind peer review process, and reviewers play a central role in upholding that standard. This guide explains how the review system works, where your review fits into the overall process, and what is expected of you as a reviewer.

How the Review System Works

  • IJMSEd uses a double-blind peer review system: authors do not know the identity of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
  • At least two (2) independent, expert reviewers are assigned to each manuscript.
  • The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor, based on the reviewers' recommendations.
  • The Editor aims to inform the corresponding author of the outcome within 15 to 45 days of submission, so timely reviewer feedback is essential to meeting this window.
  • The language of publication is English, and Mendeley is the journal's standard reference management tool — references follow APA 7th Edition style.

Where Your Review Fits in the Process

Before a manuscript reaches you, it has already passed through two checks:

  1. Editorial Desk Review — the Editor confirms the manuscript fits IJMSEd's focus and scope, meets basic formatting and structural requirements, has no major methodological flaws, and is written in clear academic English.
  2. Plagiarism Check — every manuscript is screened via Turnitin. Only manuscripts with a similarity index of 20% or below are forwarded to reviewers.

This means the manuscript in front of you has already cleared scope, basic quality, and originality screening — your role is to evaluate its scholarly merit in depth.

Step-by-Step: What You Do as a Reviewer

Step 1 — Confirm You Can Review Objectively

  • Check that you have no conflict of interest with the manuscript's subject matter.
  • Do not attempt to identify the author(s), and keep the manuscript and your review strictly confidential throughout the process.

Step 2 — Evaluate the Manuscript on Five Criteria

  • Originality — novelty and contribution to the field of mathematics education.
  • Relevance — alignment with the journal's scope and current literature.
  • Methodology — soundness and appropriateness of the research design and analysis.
  • Presentation — clarity, coherence, and overall quality of writing.
  • Contribution — significance and potential impact of the findings.

Step 3 — Write Clear, Actionable Comments

  • Compile your comments and recommendations so they can be compiled and sent to the corresponding author.
  • Be specific enough that the author can address each point directly — your comments will drive the author's point-by-point response letter.

Step 4 — Submit Your Recommendation

Base your recommendation on your evaluation of the five criteria above. The Editor uses reviewer recommendations, together with the desk review and plagiarism results, to reach one of the following editorial decisions:

  • Accept as is — no further changes required.
  • Accept with minor revisions — small corrections needed before publication.
  • Major revisions required — substantial revisions needed; the manuscript may be sent back to you for re-review.
  • Reject — manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication.

Step 5 — Be Available for Re-Review, If Needed

If you recommended major revisions, the author has 20 days to return a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response letter. If the revision is returned within that window, you may be asked to re-review it. If the author returns the revision later than 20 days, the manuscript re-enters the process as a new submission, including a new plagiarism check, and may be reassigned.

Key Policies to Keep in Mind

  • Confidentiality: maintain the anonymity of the double-blind process — do not share the manuscript, your review, or your identity as reviewer with anyone outside the editorial process.
  • Plagiarism: manuscripts sent to you have already passed the 20% Turnitin similarity threshold; if you notice unattributed or suspiciously similar content during review, flag it to the Editor.
  • Reference style: manuscripts should follow Mendeley-managed APA 7th Edition references — note any inconsistencies in your comments.
  • Timeliness: the journal aims to deliver a decision to authors within 15 to 45 days of submission, so returning your review promptly helps the journal meet this commitment.