Peer review is what makes published research trustworthy. Neo Civic Education invites scholars of civic education, citizenship, political and legal education, and related fields to join its pool of reviewers. Reviewing is voluntary service to the field.

—  Hold a doctoral degree or be a doctoral candidate, or have an equivalent publication record.

—  Have published peer-reviewed articles in civic education, citizenship, or a closely related field.

—  Have expertise in the focus and scope of the journal.

—  Be able to review in English, with enough time to meet the deadline.

—  Have no conflict of interest with the manuscripts you accept.

1.  Register at the journal website and tick the Reviewer role, or write to neociviceducation@unima.ac.id.

2.  Send your full name, institution, country, email, ORCID iD, and the profile page for Scopus or Google Scholar.

3.  List your areas of expertise and a few keywords.

4.  Send two or three recent publications in your field.

5.  The editors will check your profile and tell you the decision.

—  Accept an invitation only with the relevant expertise and the time to meet the deadline, and answer promptly even when declining.

—  Declare any conflict of interest and decline to review where one exists.

—  Keep the manuscript confidential: do not share it or use it for personal gain.

—  Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools.

—  Write objective, specific, and courteous comments, and do not try to identify the authors.

—  Recommend accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or decline, with reasons.

—  Report suspected misconduct to the editor.

The standards follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the Peer Review Process of the journal.

—  A review certificate on request.

—  Your name in the list of reviewers for the year, unless you prefer not to be listed.

—  Early access to new scholarship in your field.

—  A route to the editorial board for reviewers who give consistent, high-quality service.

Reviewers whose reviews are repeatedly late, thin, or discourteous, or who break confidentiality, may be removed from the pool. The editor monitors the quality of reviews.

Peer Review Process  ·  Reviewers  ·  Publication Ethics  ·  Conflict of Interest  ·  Editorial Board