Peer Reviewer

Dina Imam Supaat, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Malaysia
Amarru Muftie Holish, Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law, Spain
Jeremy Patrick, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia
Sumanto Al Qurtuby, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Adrianus Sandy Darmawan Satrio, Consulate General of The Republic of Indonesia in New York, US
R. Benny Riyanto, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Suhadi, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Rodiyah Rodiyah, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Irawaty, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Achmad Busro, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Indonesia
Dani Muhtada, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Muhyidin Muhyidin, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Indonesia
Kornelius Benuf, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Indonesia
Muhammad Shidqon Prabowo, Universitas Wahid Hasyim, Semarang, Indonesia
Tri Widayati, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945, Semarang, Indonesia
Kanti Rahayu, Universitas Pancasakti Tegal, Indonesia
Lastuti Abubakar, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia
Muhammad Mutawalli Mukhlis, Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam Negeri Majene, Majene, Indonesia
Sunusi Dauda, Bayero University, Nigeria
Rana Sharjeel Akhtar, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Rahmawati Mohd Yusoff, Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM), Cawangan Johor, Malaysia
Nurzaimah binti Asalal, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia
Muhammad Alhaji Babayo, Islamic University of Madina, Saudi Arabia

All manuscripts submitted to this journal must follow focus and scope, and author guidelines of this journal. The submitted manuscripts must address scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism contents. All authors are suggested to use plagiarism detection software to do the similarity checking. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal by using Turnitin software.

The research article submitted to this journal will be double-blind reviewed by at least 2 (two) or more expert reviewers. The reviewers give scientific valuable comments improving the contents of the manuscript.

Final decision of articles acceptance will be made by Editors according to reviewers comments. Publication of accepted articles including the sequence of published articles will be made by Editor in Chief by considering sequence of accepted date and geographical distribution of authors as well as thematic issue.

Reviewer Guidelines

In reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer should pay attention to the following:

Presentation

Does the paper relate 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?

Title

Does the title concise, omitting terms that are implicit and, where possible, be a statement of the main result or conclusion presented in the manuscript? Abbreviations should be avoided within the title.

Abstract

Does the abstract consist of 1) aim of the study; 2) method; 3) result or finding; and 4) conclusion?

Introduction

  1. Clearly describing and respectively:
  2. The background of the study;
  3. State of the art, relevant research to justify the novelty of the manuscript;
  4. Gap analysis, novelty statement;
  5. Hypothesis or problem statement (optional);
  6. Approach to resolve the problem; and
  7. The aim of the study.

Methods

  1. The method is written clearly, so then other researchers can replicate the experiment or research with the same result;
  2. Not only describe the definition of terms but also describe how to conduct the research;
  3. Describe the location, participant, research instrument, and data analysis;

Results and Discussion

  1. The data presented has been processed (not raw data) into a table or figure and given a supportive description which easy to follow.
  2. The result related to the original questions or objectives outlined in the Introduction section.
  3. The author describes the result of the study consistent with what other investigators have reported or there any differences.
  4. The author provides interpretation scientifically for each of the results or findings presented.
  5. The author describes the implications of the research.
  6. The author describes the limitations of the research or drawbacks to the method or position.
  7. The author describes further need/areas for research or expansion of ideas.

Conclusion 

  1. Answer the objectives of the research;
  2. Implication or recommendation (optional).