Reviewer Guidelines

NEO CIVIC EDUCATION: MEDIA KAJIAN PANCASILA DAN KEWARGANEGARAAN

Reviewer Guidelines

How to review for the journal, step by step, following the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Click a section to open it.

01About reviewing for Neo Civic Education▾
Reviewers help the editors decide and help authors improve their work. Neo Civic Education: Media Kajian Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan uses double-anonymous review with at least two reviewers for original research articles and systematic reviews. These guidelines follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practice on peer review processes.
Response to invitation Promptly, even when declining
Time for the review 21 days
Re-review of a revision Usually shorter; the editor gives the date
Where Through the journal system (OJS)
02Before you accept▾
—  Expertise: accept only if the manuscript is in your field and you can assess it competently. If you can assess only part of it, tell the editor.
—  Time: accept only if you can finish within 21 days. If you need more time, ask before accepting.
—  Conflicts of interest: decline if you have one, or declare it to the editor. See Reviewer Competing Interests.
—  Prior review: tell the editor if you have reviewed the same manuscript for another journal.
—  If you decline, suggesting other qualified reviewers is welcome.
03Confidentiality and AI▾
—  Treat the manuscript as confidential. Do not share it or discuss it without the editor’s permission.
—  Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools, and do not use AI to write your report. See AI in Peer Review.
—  Do not try to identify the authors, and do not contact them.
—  Do not use information from the manuscript for your own work. See Peer Review Confidentiality.
04Step by step in the journal system▾
1.  Open the invitation email and follow the link, or log in to the journal website and go to Submissions > My Assigned.
2.  Request: read the title and abstract, check the review deadline, and accept or decline. Declare any competing interest here.
3.  Guidelines: read these guidelines and the journal’s review instructions.
4.  Download & review: download the anonymous manuscript and any supplementary files. Write your comments in the two boxes: for author and editor, and for editor only. You may also upload an annotated file; remove your name from its properties first.
5.  Recommendation: choose your recommendation and submit the review.
6.  You will receive a confirmation and, later, the editor’s decision.
7.  If you need an extension, write to the editor before the deadline. Extensions are short and agreed case by case.
05What to assess▾
Scope and contribution Does the manuscript fit the Focus and Scope, and does it add something new to citizenship studies or civic education?
Title and abstract Do they reflect the content accurately?
Introduction and literature Is the problem clear? Is the literature current and relevant, and is the gap stated?
Methods Are the design, data, and analysis suitable, described clearly enough to be repeated, and ethically sound? For systematic reviews, is a reporting standard such as PRISMA 2020 followed?
Results and discussion Are the findings supported by the data? Are they interpreted in the light of the literature, with limitations stated?
Conclusion Does it follow from the results, and are implications for theory, practice, or policy given?
Ethics Approval and consent for research with people, protection of participants, declarations of funding, conflicts, and AI use.
References More than 25, mostly recent peer-reviewed articles, in APA 7th style, and cited accurately. See Reference Style.
Presentation Clarity of English, structure, tables, and figures.
06By type of manuscript▾
Original research, quantitative Clear hypotheses or research questions; valid and reliable instruments; adequate sample and sampling; appropriate statistical tests, with effect sizes where relevant; results reported fully in tables, not raw software output.
Original research, qualitative Clear research questions and approach (for example case study, ethnography, phenomenology); how participants and sites were chosen; data collection and analysis described step by step; credibility and trustworthiness; reflexivity; quotations that support the claims.
Mixed methods Why both approaches are needed; how the data are integrated; whether the conclusions draw on both strands.
Systematic literature review A clear question; a reproducible search (databases, dates, search strings); inclusion and exclusion criteria; screening shown in a PRISMA 2020 flow diagram; quality appraisal of included studies; synthesis that goes beyond description.
07Writing the report▾
1.  Start with a short summary of the manuscript and its main claims, to show how you understood it.
2.  Give your overall assessment: strengths and main weaknesses.
3.  List major comments: problems that affect the validity or contribution, with specific suggestions.
4.  List minor comments: wording, presentation, references, with page or line numbers.
5.  Put confidential comments for the editor in the separate field, not in the comments to authors.
6.  Choose a recommendation: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or decline. The recommendation should match the comments.
Good and poor comments
Poor “The methodology is weak.”
Good “The sampling of 12 teachers from one school limits the claim about ‘Indonesian civic education’ in the conclusion. Please either justify the transferability or narrow the claim, and discuss this in the limitations.”
Poor “The literature is outdated.”
Good “Section 2 relies mainly on sources before 2015. Recent work on digital citizenship and youth participation should be considered, so that the gap is stated against current research.”
08Choosing a recommendation▾
Accept Sound, original, and clearly written. Only copyediting is needed. Rare at the first round.
Minor revisions Sound and original. Small changes to clarity, presentation, references, or minor analysis are needed. You do not need to see it again.
Major revisions Potentially publishable, but needs substantial work: further analysis, rewriting of key sections, stronger framing, or added data. You will normally see it again.
Decline Serious flaws that cannot be fixed by revision, outside the scope, no clear contribution, or ethical problems.
Your recommendation advises the editor. The decision is the editor’s, based on all the reviews. See Editorial Decisions.
09Checklist before you submit the review▾
1.  I have no undeclared competing interest.
2.  I have not uploaded the manuscript to any AI tool or shared it.
3.  My report starts with a summary and covers the points in section 05.
4.  Every major criticism gives a reason and a suggestion.
5.  My comments to authors contain nothing that identifies me.
6.  Confidential remarks are in the box for the editor only.
7.  My recommendation matches my comments.
8.  I am submitting within the deadline, or have agreed an extension.
10Tone and conduct▾
—  Be objective, specific, and courteous. Comment on the work, not on the authors.
—  Support criticism with reasons and, where possible, evidence or references.
—  Do not ask authors to cite your own work, or the journal’s, without a genuine scholarly reason. See Peer Review Manipulation.
—  Respect different methods and perspectives; judge the manuscript on its own terms.
—  Editors may edit comments that are inappropriate. See Editing Peer Reviews.
11Suspected misconduct▾
If you suspect plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, duplicate publication, undisclosed AI use, or ethical problems, tell the editor in the confidential comments, with the evidence. Do not investigate yourself and do not contact the authors. See Research Misconduct.
12Re-review and recognition▾
—  Use the same standards as in the first round, and do not raise new major points unless the revision created them.
—  Say clearly which comments have been addressed and which have not.
—  When a revision comes back, check whether your comments have been addressed, using the authors’ response letter.
—  Reviewers are thanked by name, by issue, on the reviewer list, and may ask for a certificate of reviewing.