Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript carefully and objectively based on the following criteria. Please provide constructive comments to improve the manuscript's quality. The review should focus on scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the field of this journal.

General Review Criteria

Please evaluate each section of the manuscript based on the following aspects:

  • Originality: Does the manuscript present new and meaningful knowledge?
  • Relevance: Is the topic appropriate for Edumatic: Jurnal Pendidikan Informatika?
  • Scientific Quality: Are the research design, analysis, and arguments scientifically sound?
  • Clarity: Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured?
  • Contribution: Does the manuscript provide theoretical, methodological, or practical contributions 

 

Reviewer Evaluation Form

1. Title

  • The title is clear, concise, and accurately represents the content of the manuscript.
  • The title reflects the main variables, concepts, or research focus.
  • The title is relevant to the scope of informatics education.

Reviewer Comments:

[Please provide comments and suggestions regarding the title.]

 

2. Abstract

  • The abstract provides a clear overview of the research background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
  • The abstract represents the main content of the manuscript accurately.
  • Keywords are relevant and support discoverability of the article.

Reviewer Comments:

[Please provide comments and suggestions regarding the abstract.]

 

3. Introduction

  • Contextual Background: The reviewer should evaluate whether the manuscript provides a clear research context, supported by relevant literature, and establishes the urgency and significance of the research problem.
  • Theoretical Foundation and Critical Literature Review: The reviewer should evaluate whether the manuscript presents an appropriate theoretical foundation and critically synthesises previous studies to support the research argument.
  • Literature Gap: The reviewer should evaluate whether the manuscript clearly identifies limitations in previous research and demonstrates the need for further investigation.
  • Scientific Gap and Justification: The reviewer should evaluate whether the manuscript explains the knowledge gap and provides a clear justification regarding the theoretical, methodological, or practical contribution of the research.
  • Research Objectives, Novelty, and Contribution: The reviewer should evaluate whether the research objectives are clearly stated and whether the manuscript demonstrates its novelty and contribution compared with previous studies.

Reviewer Comments:

[Please provide comments and suggestions regarding the introduction.]

 

4. Method

  • The research design is appropriate for addressing the research objectives.
  • The research procedures are clearly explained.
  • Data collection methods and instruments are adequately described.
  • Data analysis techniques are appropriate and properly applied.
  • The methodology provides sufficient information for replication or evaluation.

Reviewer Comments:

[Please provide comments and suggestions regarding the methodology.]

 

5. Results

  • The results are presented clearly and systematically.
  • The findings are supported by appropriate data analysis.
  • Tables, figures, and other visualizations are relevant and understandable.
  • The results directly address the research objectives or questions.

Reviewer Comments:

[Please provide comments and suggestions regarding the results.]

 

6. Discussion

  • Key Findings Summary: The reviewer should evaluate whether the manuscript clearly summarises the main findings related to the research objectives without repeating the results section.
  • Theoretical Interpretation: The reviewer should evaluate whether the findings are meaningfully interpreted and linked to the theoretical framework, including their implications for supporting, extending, or challenging existing theories.
  • Comparison with Previous Studies: The reviewer should evaluate whether the manuscript critically compares the findings with previous studies and provides appropriate explanations for similarities and differences.
  • Explanation of Unexpected Findings: The reviewer should evaluate whether unexpected or contradictory findings are adequately explained using relevant theoretical or contextual arguments.
  • Scientific Contribution: The reviewer should evaluate whether the manuscript clearly demonstrates its contribution to knowledge development through theoretical, conceptual, or empirical advancement.
  • Practical and Policy Implications: The reviewer should evaluate whether the manuscript presents relevant practical or policy implications that are supported by the research findings.
  • Limitations and Future Research: The reviewer should evaluate whether the manuscript acknowledges research limitations appropriately and provides relevant recommendations for future studies based on the findings.

Reviewer Comments:

[Please provide comments and suggestions regarding the discussion.]

 

7. Conclusion

  • The conclusion is consistent with the research findings.
  • The study's main contributions are clearly stated.
  • The implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research are appropriately discussed.

Reviewer Comments:

[Please provide comments and suggestions regarding the conclusion.]

 

8. References

  • References are relevant to the research topic.
  • The manuscript uses credible and up-to-date academic sources.
  • Citations are properly integrated into the manuscript.
  • The reference style follows the journal's guidelines.

Reviewer Comments:

[Please provide comments and suggestions regarding references.]