Reviewer Link

Reviewer Link

Peer Review Process

Edulab is committed to peer-review integrity and upholding the standards of review. Once your paper has been assessed for suitability by the editor, it will then be double-blind peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. Edulab Review Guideline:

Step 1: Editorial assessment

Peer review follows a number of stages, beginning with submitting your article to a journal. At this first stage, the journal editor will decide if it’s suitable for the journal, asking questions such as: • Has the author followed the journal’s guidelines? • Is this the right journal for this article? • Will the journal’s readers find it interesting and useful? The editor might reject the article immediately, but otherwise it will move to the next stage, and into peer review.

Step 2: First round of peer review

The editor will find and contact potential referees or other researchers or academics who are experts in your field. They will be asked to read your article, and advise the editor whether to publish your paper in that journal

Step 3: Revise and resubmit

You can then amend your article based on the reviewers’ comments, resubmitting it with any or all changes made. You may be asked to make further revisions or the paper may be rejected if the editor thinks that the revisions you have made are not adequate.

Reviewer Guideline

The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Presentation
Does the paper relate to a cohesive argument? Are the ideas clearly presented?

Writing
Does the title characterize the manuscript? Is the writing concise and easy to follow?

Length
What portions of the paper should be expanded? Removed? Condensed? Summarized? Combined?

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

Abstract

  • Is it a summary?
  • Does it include key findings?
  • Is it an appropriate length?

Introduction

  • Is it effective, clear, and well organized?
  • Does it introduce and put into perspective what follows?
  • Suggest changes in organization and point authors to appropriate citations.
  • Be specific - do not write “the authors have done a poor job.”

Methodology

  • Can a colleague reproduce the experiments and get the same outcomes?
  • Did the authors include proper references to previously published methodology?
  • Is the description of the new methodology accurate?
  • Could or should the authors have included supplementary material?

Results and Discussion

  • Suggest improvements in the way data is shown
  • Comment on general logic and justification of interpretations and conclusions
  • Comment on the number of figures, tables, and schemes Write concisely and precisely which changes you recommend List separately suggested changes in style, grammar, and other small changes
  • Suggest additional experiments or analyses
  • Make clear the need for changes/updates
  • Ask yourself whether the manuscript should be published at all

Conclusion

  • Comment on importance, validity, and generality of conclusions
  • Request toning down of unjustified claims and generalizations
  • Request removal of redundancies and summaries
  • The abstract, not the conclusion, summarizes the study

References, Tables, and Figures

  • Check accuracy, number, and citation appropriateness
  • Comment on any footnotes Comment on figures, their quality, and readability
  • Assess completeness of legends, headers, and axis labels
  • Check presentation consistency Comment on the need for color in figures

When submitting your recommendation, you can choose from the following options:

  • Outstanding
  • Sound
  • Sound with minor or moderate revisions
  • Unsound or fundamentally flawed

Reviewers Acknowledgment

Edulab: Majalah Ilmiah Laboratorium Pendidikan gratefully acknowledges the scholarly contributions of reviewers who have dedicated their time, expertise, and professional judgment to the evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the journal. The journal operates a double-anonymous peer review system, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Consistent with this policy, reviewer recognition is provided only following the completion of the relevant review process and is presented on a non-attributive basis. Accordingly, no reviewer is identified in connection with a specific manuscript or editorial decision.

The journal is honored to recognize the following scholars for their valuable service as reviewers. Their contributions are deeply appreciated and form an integral part of the journal’s ongoing commitment to responsible, rigorous, and internationally recognized scholarly publishing.

Become A Reviewer

The success of the Edulab : Majalah Ilmiah Laboratorium Pendidikan, like that of all important scientific publications, is dependent on a dedicated team that can fairly and quickly assess manuscripts submitted by scientists from all over the world. Finally, the journal's team is in charge of selecting papers for publishing in Edulab that contain the most unique, significant, and impactful scientific findings.

Critical members of Edulab's team are outstanding scientists with competence in one or more of the topics covered by the journal and are prepared to give their time to review the original and updated versions of manuscripts submitted to the journal, as judged by their published work. 

Furthermore, the journal's editors and Editor-in-Chief rely on these reviewers for guidance on final editorial decisions (i.e., rejection or acceptance) for submitted papers. Edulab's Editorial Team would like to extend an invitation to eligible scientists to contact the journal's Editor-in-Chief about becoming reviewers for Edulab through this editorial.

If you'd like to be a reviewer for Edulab, please submit an email to edulabfitk@gmail.com with a brief summary of your background, professional accomplishments, and reviewing experience. We aim to hear from interested parties and to improve the quality and speed of Edulab's-review process in the future.

Please kindly fill out the form below:

https://forms.gle/kmBgCaExyABetyqF6

Your expertise is highly appreciated and will contribute greatly to the quality of our journal.