1. Purpose and Editorial Commitment

As-Shuffah: Islam and Digital Humanities Review recognizes peer reviewers as essential contributors to the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publishing.

These reviewer guidelines provide practical instructions for conducting rigorous, independent, constructive, confidential, and ethical manuscript evaluations.

The guidelines are designed to help reviewers assess the scientific quality of submissions, identify substantive strengths and weaknesses, provide useful recommendations to authors, and support evidence-based editorial decisions.

As-Shuffah follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the journal's established Peer Review Policy, Publication Ethics, and AI Use Policy.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts fairly and professionally, with particular attention to their contribution to elementary education scholarship.

2. Peer Review System

As-Shuffah applies a single-anonymous (single-blind) peer-review system.

Under this model:

• Reviewers have access to the authors' identities and institutional affiliations.

• Reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors through the routine review process.

• Manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential.

• Manuscripts proceeding to external review are evaluated by at least two qualified, independent reviewers.

• Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not determine, the final editorial decision.

• The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor is responsible for editorial decisions.

Reviewers should focus on scholarly merit and must not allow an author's institutional affiliation, geographical origin, professional reputation, or personal characteristics to influence their evaluation.

3. Responsibilities Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers must consider their expertise, independence, availability, and ability to comply with the journal's ethical requirements.

3.1. Subject and Methodological Expertise

Reviewers should accept assignments only when their expertise is sufficiently relevant to the manuscript.

Relevant expertise may include:

• Elementary education and integrated learning.

• Curriculum, pedagogy, and instructional innovation.

• Child development and educational psychology.

• Educational assessment and learning evaluation.

• Teacher education and professional development.

• Educational technology and digital learning.

• Inclusive education and educational equity.

• Quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, or review research methodologies.

Reviewers should inform the handling editor when substantial aspects of a manuscript fall outside their expertise.

3.2. Availability and Timeliness

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they can reasonably complete the evaluation within the specified deadline.

As-Shuffah normally requests reviews within 2–4 weeks after the invitation is accepted.

The actual deadline is communicated through OJS.

Reviewers who cannot meet the deadline should decline promptly or request an extension before the due date.

3.3. Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could reasonably compromise impartiality.

These may include:

• Recent or ongoing research collaboration with an author.

• A close institutional or professional relationship.

• Personal relationships or academic disputes.

• Financial interests related to the manuscript.

• Direct competition involving substantially similar unpublished research.

• Other circumstances that could influence independent judgment.

Reviewers should seek editorial advice when uncertain whether a relationship constitutes a conflict.

A reviewer with a significant competing interest must decline or withdraw from the assignment.

3.4. Confidentiality and AI Compliance

Before accepting, reviewers must ensure that they can maintain manuscript confidentiality and comply with As-Shuffah's prohibition on AI-assisted peer review.

Reviewers must not accept assignments with the intention of transferring manuscript evaluation to another person or an AI system.

4. Peer Review Workflow in OJS

As-Shuffah manages manuscript review through Open Journal Systems (OJS 3).

The general review process consists of the following stages.

Stage 1 — Receiving the Invitation

The reviewer receives an invitation through OJS or an official editorial notification.

The invitation generally provides relevant information about the manuscript, the review deadline, and instructions for responding.

Stage 2 — Accepting or Declining

The reviewer logs in to OJS and accepts or declines the assignment.

Reviewers should respond promptly to avoid unnecessary editorial delays.

Stage 3 — Accessing Review Materials

After accepting, the reviewer accesses the manuscript and the available supplementary materials.

The reviewer should read the manuscript, review instructions, and relevant journal policies before beginning the assessment.

Stage 4 — Conducting the Evaluation

The reviewer evaluates the manuscript's relevance, originality, methodology, evidence, interpretation, contribution, and ethical compliance.

Comments should distinguish substantive scientific concerns from minor presentation issues.

Stage 5 — Preparing the Review Report

The reviewer prepares constructive comments for the authors and, where necessary, confidential comments for the editor.

The reviewer also selects an appropriate recommendation in the OJS review interface.

Stage 6 — Submitting the Review

The reviewer completes the required review fields and submits the evaluation through OJS.

Reviewers should verify that their comments and recommendations are complete before final submission.

Stage 7 — Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

The handling editor may invite the reviewer to assess a revised manuscript.

Reviewers should examine whether the authors have adequately addressed the essential concerns raised in the previous review.

The specific buttons and fields displayed in OJS may vary according to the journal's active configuration.

5. General Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts using consistent scientific and ethical criteria.

Evaluation Dimension	Guiding Questions
Relevance and Scope	Does the manuscript address an important issue within elementary education?
Originality and Novelty	Is the research gap supported, and does the study offer a meaningful contribution?
Theoretical Foundation	Are relevant concepts and previous studies critically integrated?
Research Objectives	Are the research questions or objectives clear, focused, and answerable?
Methodological Rigor	Are the research design and procedures appropriate, justified, and transparent?
Evidence and Results	Are findings adequately supported by valid and relevant evidence?
Discussion and Interpretation	Are findings critically interpreted in relation to theory and previous research?
Conclusion and Contribution	Do conclusions follow from the evidence, and is the contribution clearly explained?
Academic Presentation	Is the manuscript coherent, professionally written, and appropriately referenced?
Research Integrity	Are relevant ethical requirements, disclosures, and participant protections addressed?

Reviewers should evaluate each dimension in relation to the specific research design.

A qualitative study should not be judged exclusively by quantitative standards, and a review article should not be evaluated as though it were an empirical intervention study.

As-Shuffah does not require reviewers to assign numerical scores unless a specific scoring form is provided through OJS.

6. Reviewing Original Research Articles

Original Research Articles present new empirical findings supported by appropriate research procedures.

Reviewers should examine the scientific problem, research design, data quality, analytical procedures, and interpretation of findings.

6.1. Introduction and Research Gap

Consider whether:

• The research problem is clearly defined.

• The educational significance is established.

• Previous studies are critically synthesized.

• The research gap is supported by relevant literature.

• The study's objectives and proposed contribution are explicit.

A claim that a study is novel solely because it was conducted at a different school is generally insufficient without broader scholarly justification.

6.2. Research Design and Methods

As-Shuffah recommends the WHAT–WHY–HOW–QUALITY framework for methodological reporting.

Element	Reviewer Focus
WHAT	Is the research design or procedure clearly identified?
WHY	Is the methodological choice appropriate and justified?
HOW	Are participants, instruments, procedures, and analysis explained transparently?
QUALITY	Are validity, reliability, credibility, trustworthiness, or other relevant safeguards addressed?

Reviewers should consider whether the evidence and methodology are sufficient to answer the research questions.

For quantitative studies, relevant considerations may include sampling, measurement quality, statistical assumptions, effect estimates, confidence intervals, and possible biases.

For qualitative studies, relevant considerations may include sampling rationale, data adequacy, analytical transparency, reflexivity, credibility, and the relationship between evidence and interpretation.

For mixed-methods studies, reviewers should assess the rationale for combining methods and the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings.

6.3. Results

Reviewers should determine whether:

• Findings address the stated research objectives.

• Analyses are appropriate and accurately reported.

• Claims are supported by the presented evidence.

• Tables and figures communicate relevant information clearly.

• Results are distinguished from unsupported interpretation.

6.4. Discussion

Reviewers should assess whether the Discussion explains why the findings matter.

The journal recommends the Point–Reason–Evidence–Conclusion (PREC) approach as a flexible structure for developing analytical arguments.

Reviewers may consider whether interpretations are supported by the findings, grounded in relevant scholarship, and attentive to alternative explanations.

6.5. Conclusion

The Conclusion should synthesize the principal findings and explain their contribution without introducing unsupported claims.

Reviewers should consider whether methodological limitations affect the strength or generalizability of the conclusions.

7. Reviewing Review Articles

Review Articles must provide a transparent, critical, and methodologically appropriate synthesis of existing scholarly evidence.

A scholarly review should contribute more than a sequential summary of published studies.

7.1. Review Question and Design

Reviewers should determine whether:

• The review question is clearly formulated.

• The review type is identified.

• The review design is justified.

• The review addresses a meaningful knowledge gap.

7.2. Literature Search

Reviewers should assess the transparency and adequacy of:

• Databases and information sources.

• Search terms and search strings.

• Search dates and relevant restrictions.

• Supplementary identification procedures.

The search strategy should be appropriate to the review question and sufficiently reproducible for the claimed review methodology.

7.3. Eligibility and Study Selection

Reviewers should evaluate:

• Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

• Screening and selection procedures.

• Management of duplicate records.

• Study-selection documentation.

• Potential selection bias.

7.4. Evidence Appraisal and Synthesis

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript:

• Appropriately evaluates the included evidence.

• Identifies patterns, differences, and contradictions.

• Considers methodological limitations.

• Synthesizes evidence using a transparent analytical procedure.

• Derives conclusions proportionate to the evidence.

Merely arranging summaries of individual publications is not sufficient for a rigorous scholarly review.

7.5. Reporting Guidelines

Where appropriate, systematic reviews should follow PRISMA 2020, while scoping reviews should follow PRISMA-ScR.

Reviewers should apply reporting requirements in accordance with the actual review design.

Authors should not be required to report compliance with a guideline that is inappropriate for their methodology.

8. Research Ethics and Participant Protection

Reviewers should examine whether relevant ethical requirements have been adequately addressed.

Research involving elementary school students requires particular attention to children's rights, dignity, safety, privacy, and welfare.

8.1. Ethical Approval and Consent

Reviewers should consider whether manuscripts appropriately describe:

• Ethical approval where required.

• Institutional permissions.

• Informed consent.

• Parental or guardian consent where applicable.

• Age-appropriate child assent.

• Confidentiality and data-protection measures.

School permission does not automatically substitute for participant consent or child assent when these are required.

8.2. Protection of Identifiable Information

Reviewers should identify potential concerns involving:

• Identifiable photographs of children.

• Individual student records.

• Confidential assessment results.

• Interview extracts containing personal information.

• Classroom recordings.

• Other sensitive participant information.

Ethical concerns should be communicated confidentially to the handling editor.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify participants or independently contact schools, teachers, students, or research participants.

8.3. Research Data Integrity

Reviewers should assess whether data reporting and analytical procedures are transparent and consistent.

Any credible concern about fabricated or falsified data must be reported to the editor through the appropriate confidential channel.

9. Preparing a Constructive Review Report

A high-quality review report should help the editor make an informed decision and provide authors with clear guidance for improving their work.

Review comments should be specific, respectful, evidence-based, and proportionate to the identified concerns.

As-Shuffah recommends the following report structure.

9.1. Brief Summary

Begin with a concise summary of the manuscript's purpose, approach, and potential contribution.

The summary should demonstrate that the reviewer understands the study.

9.2. Overall Assessment

Identify the manuscript's principal strengths and the most significant issues affecting scientific quality.

Consider the importance of the research problem, contribution, methodological adequacy, and reliability of conclusions.

9.3. Major Comments

Major comments address concerns that materially affect the manuscript's scientific validity, interpretability, or contribution.

Examples include:

• An insufficiently supported research gap.

• A mismatch between research objectives and design.

• Inadequate methodological justification.

• Unclear sampling or data-collection procedures.

• Missing or inappropriate analytical procedures.

• Unsupported causal claims.

• Inadequate evidence synthesis.

• Conclusions that exceed the available findings.

Reviewers should explain why each concern matters and what clarification, analysis, or revision is needed.

9.4. Minor Comments

Minor comments concern improvements that do not fundamentally affect the research's scientific validity.

Examples include:

• Unclear terminology.

• Inconsistent abbreviations.

• Minor organizational problems.

• Table or figure labeling.

• Citation or formatting inconsistencies.

• Language issues affecting readability.

Minor comments should be proportionate and should not dominate the scientific evaluation.

9.5. Overall Recommendation

Conclude with a recommendation consistent with the strengths and weaknesses described in the review.

A recommendation should not contradict the substance of the review report.

10. Example of Constructive Reviewer Comments

The following examples illustrate appropriate scholarly feedback.

Example A — Research Gap

Less Helpful Comment

The introduction is weak and lacks novelty.

Recommended Comment

The Introduction identifies a relevant educational problem, but the research gap is not yet sufficiently established. The authors should compare the principal findings of recent related studies, identify what remains unresolved, and clarify how the present investigation contributes beyond existing research.

Example B — Methodology

Less Helpful Comment

The research methods are unclear.

Recommended Comment

The manuscript identifies a quantitative approach but does not adequately explain the sampling procedure or justify the analytical technique. Please clarify how participants were selected, describe the relevant measurement procedures, and explain why the selected analysis is appropriate for the research objectives.

Example C — Discussion

Less Helpful Comment

The Discussion needs improvement.

Recommended Comment

The Discussion largely repeats the Results without explaining their significance. The authors should interpret the principal findings, compare them critically with relevant studies, consider alternative explanations, and clarify the contribution to elementary education research.

Example D — Review Article

Recommended Comment

The review addresses an important topic, but the evidence-selection process requires greater transparency. Please provide the databases searched, search dates, search strategies, eligibility criteria, and procedures used to synthesize the included studies. The Discussion should also evaluate patterns and contradictions across studies rather than presenting isolated summaries.

These examples are illustrative and must be adapted to the actual manuscript.

Reviewers must independently formulate their comments and must not use generative AI to prepare peer-review assessments.

11. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers should select the recommendation that best reflects their scientific assessment.

Recommendation	Appropriate Circumstances
Accept	The manuscript meets the required scientific and ethical standards without substantive revision.
Minor Revision	Limited improvements are needed without fundamental changes to the research.
Major Revision	Significant improvements are required in methodology, analysis, argumentation, evidence, or presentation.
Reject	Fundamental scientific, methodological, or ethical weaknesses prevent publication in the present form.

The recommendation labels available in OJS may differ from these categories. Reviewers should select the closest applicable option and explain their reasoning.

11.1. Accept

Recommend acceptance when the manuscript makes a credible scholarly contribution and meets the journal's requirements.

Minor proofreading needs alone do not necessarily justify another full review round.

11.2. Minor Revision

Recommend minor revision when the study is scientifically sound but requires limited clarification or correction.

11.3. Major Revision

Recommend major revision when substantial improvements are necessary, but the manuscript has a potentially publishable scholarly contribution.

A major revision recommendation does not imply guaranteed acceptance.

11.4. Reject

Recommend rejection when fundamental weaknesses cannot reasonably be addressed within the existing study, or the manuscript does not meet the journal's essential standards.

Reviewers must explain their recommendations through clear scientific reasoning.

The final editorial decision is made by the authorized editor, not by individual reviewers.

12. Confidential Comments to the Editor

As-Shuffah may provide a separate field for confidential comments to the editor.

This field is intended for matters requiring editorial attention that should not be included in ordinary author-facing feedback.

Appropriate matters may include:

• A credible concern about possible research misconduct.

• A significant conflict of interest.

• Possible duplicate publication.

• Suspected peer-review manipulation.

• A serious confidentiality or participant-protection issue.

• Relevant limitations in the reviewer's expertise.

• Additional information necessary for a fair editorial decision.

Confidential comments must remain factual, professional, and evidence-based.

They must not be used to make unsupported accusations, include personal criticism, or conceal scientific concerns that authors should reasonably have an opportunity to address.

Most substantive comments about manuscript quality should appear in the report available to authors.

13. Confidentiality and Intellectual Property

Submitted manuscripts are confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not:

• Distribute manuscripts to unauthorized individuals.

• Discuss unpublished findings outside the authorized review process.

• Upload manuscripts to external platforms without editorial permission.

• Use unpublished data or ideas for personal research or professional advantage.

• Share confidential reviewer correspondence.

• Publicly disclose their assignment to review a particular manuscript without authorization.

• Contact authors directly concerning a confidential review without editorial permission.

Reviewers should use reasonable safeguards when accessing, storing, or handling manuscript files.

13.1. Collaboration in Peer Review

Reviewers must not delegate the evaluation to another individual without prior approval from the handling editor.

Where assistance from a qualified colleague or trainee is authorized, the individual must comply with the same confidentiality and ethical requirements, and their involvement must be disclosed to the editor.

Approval to involve another human reviewer does not authorize the use of generative AI.

13.2. After Completing the Review

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been submitted and after the manuscript has been published.

Reviewers should securely dispose of locally downloaded confidential materials when no longer authorized or needed for the assigned review, subject to the journal's instructions.

14. Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

In accordance with As-Shuffah's AI Use Policy and applicable Indonesian scientific journal accreditation requirements, reviewers are prohibited from using generative artificial intelligence during the manuscript review process.

14.1. Prohibited AI Activities

Reviewers must not use AI systems to:

• Read, summarize, or analyze submitted manuscripts for review.

• Assess originality or scientific contribution.

• Evaluate research methodology, statistical procedures, or qualitative evidence.

• Interpret manuscript findings or conclusions.

• Generate strengths, weaknesses, or reviewer recommendations.

• Draft, rewrite, or substantively edit peer-review comments.

• Upload manuscripts or excerpts into AI applications.

• Process confidential manuscript figures, tables, datasets, or supplementary materials.

• Produce editorial recommendations concerning acceptance, revision, or rejection.

This prohibition applies to both full manuscripts and individual manuscript sections.

14.2. Human Scholarly Judgment

All reviewer assessments must be based on independent human expertise and direct examination of the manuscript.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and scientific reasoning of their reports.

14.3. AI Compliance Declaration

Reviewers may be required to confirm compliance through the OJS review form.

Recommended Declaration

I confirm that I have independently evaluated this manuscript without using generative artificial intelligence to analyze, assess, summarize, or prepare peer-review comments or recommendations. I have not uploaded the manuscript or any confidential review materials to an AI application.

Any suspected violation should be reported to the handling editor and addressed under the journal's established ethical procedures.

15. Identifying and Reporting Research Misconduct

Reviewers play an important role in identifying potential research and publication-integrity concerns.

Relevant concerns may include:

• Plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse.

• Fabrication or falsification of data.

• Duplicate or redundant publication.

• Misleading analysis or reporting.

• Citation manipulation.

• Undisclosed competing interests.

• Inappropriate authorship practices.

• Unethical treatment of research participants.

• Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.

• Prohibited use of AI.

15.1. Reporting Procedure

Reviewers should describe credible concerns confidentially to the handling editor and identify the relevant evidence.

Reviewers must not independently investigate allegations, contact research participants, approach authors, or publicly disclose suspicions without authorization.

15.2. Similarity Screening

As-Shuffah uses Turnitin for similarity screening and applies a technical threshold of no more than 20%, subject to contextual editorial assessment.

Reviewers may identify and report potential plagiarism, but a similarity percentage alone does not establish misconduct.

Final determinations concerning plagiarism and other integrity violations are made through appropriate editorial procedures.

15.3. Fair Evaluation

An allegation alone is not proof of wrongdoing.

Reviewers should distinguish between possible misconduct, honest error, methodological disagreement, and incomplete reporting.

16. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers may be invited to reassess manuscripts following minor or major revisions.

A revised manuscript should be evaluated with reference to:

• The original reviewer comments.

• The authors' point-by-point responses.

• The revised manuscript.

• Any additional evidence or explanation provided.

16.1. Assessing Author Responses

Reviewers should determine whether the authors have adequately addressed substantive concerns.

Authors may reasonably disagree with a reviewer's recommendation when they provide sound scientific justification.

A disagreement should be evaluated on its merits rather than treated automatically as a failure to comply.

16.2. Avoiding Unnecessary New Demands

Reviewers should avoid introducing substantial new requirements during later review rounds unless necessary to address newly identified issues, problems introduced by revisions, or unresolved scientific concerns.

16.3. Revised Recommendation

The reviewer should provide an updated recommendation reflecting the scientific quality of the revised manuscript.

The editor remains responsible for determining whether additional review or revision is necessary.

17. Reviewer Professionalism and Recognition

As-Shuffah values the voluntary scholarly contributions of qualified peer reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to maintain high standards of professional conduct and uphold the integrity of the editorial process.

17.1. Professional Communication

Reviewer reports must be:

• Respectful and constructive.

• Scientifically justified.

• Clear and sufficiently detailed.

• Free from personal attacks.

• Independent of discrimination and inappropriate bias.

• Consistent with publication-ethics requirements.

17.2. Citation Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend additional literature when scientifically justified.

However, they must not demand unnecessary citations to their own publications or those of associates to increase citation counts.

17.3. Reviewer Recognition

As-Shuffah may acknowledge reviewer contributions through an editorially approved reviewer list, acknowledgment, or other appropriate recognition mechanism.

General acknowledgment of reviewer service must not disclose confidential manuscript assignments or compromise the single-anonymous review system.

Any public recognition of a reviewer's service should respect confidentiality and applicable authorization requirements.

18. Final Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting a review report, reviewers should verify the following.

Scientific Assessment

• I have carefully read the manuscript and relevant supplementary materials.

• I have evaluated the manuscript's relevance, originality, and scholarly contribution.

• I have assessed the appropriateness of the methodology.

• I have considered the reliability of the findings and interpretations.

• I have assessed the conclusions in relation to the available evidence.

• I have applied evaluation criteria appropriate to the manuscript type.

Quality of Reviewer Comments

• My comments are specific, constructive, and scientifically justified.

• Major and minor concerns are clearly distinguished.

• I have explained why essential revisions are necessary.

• My recommendation is consistent with my written assessment.

• My feedback is professional and respectful.

Ethical Compliance

• I have disclosed any relevant competing interests.

• I have maintained manuscript confidentiality.

• I have not used generative AI to analyze or evaluate the manuscript.

• I have not uploaded manuscript content to AI applications.

• I have reported credible ethical concerns confidentially to the editor.

• I have not used unpublished manuscript material for unauthorized purposes.

Review Completion

• I have completed the required OJS review fields.

• My confidential comments, if any, are appropriate and evidence-based.

• I have selected the relevant reviewer recommendation.

• I have submitted the report within the agreed review period or communicated any necessary delay.

19. Official Resources and Contact

Reviewers are encouraged to consult the journal's official policies before accepting or completing an assignment.