Type of peer review

Review process employs a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa.


The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

The following are the basic principles that peer reviewers must adhere to based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Peer reviewers should:

  • Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
  • Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
  • Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
  • Declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
  • Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
  • Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments.
  • Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner.
  • Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
  • Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

Before Reviewing

Please consider the following:

  • Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
    If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend alternate reviewer.
  • Do you have time to review the paper?

Finished reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.

  • Are there any potential conflicts of interests?

While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

  1. Title (Maximum 16 words)
  • Does the title reflect the content properly?
  • Does the title clearly or adequately describe the intent of the study?
  1. Abstracts (150-250 Words)
  • Are the background, objectives, research method, type and design research, participants, data collection tools, data analysis, major findings dan conclusion are summarized in abstract?
  1. Introduction
  • Is the problem described clearly in light of what is already known about the study topic?
  • Does the introduction include relevant previous research?
  • Does the introduction present their research gaps and novelty clearly?
  • Do the authors justify the need for this study, and does this research address the need?
  • Is the purpose of the study clearly stated?
  1. Methods
  • Is the research design clearly described and appropriate for the purpose of the study?
  • If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? W
  • Are the participants, their characteristics, and their selection methods described in detail and justified?
  • Are the purpose, content, and usage of data collection tools explained and justified?
  • Are data collection and analysis procedures are clearly explained with a reference to the role and competency of the researcher(s)?
  • For quantitative research, Are the validity and reliability processes in data collection and analyses described sufficiently?
  • For qualitative research, is the credibility or the “trustworthiness described sufficiently?
  1. Findings and Discussion
  • Do findings respond to the purpose of the study, and are presented systematically?
  • Are findings supported with sufficient and relevant quotations, examples, tables, and diagrams?
  • Is the description of the findings consistent with the study methodology (e.g., authors refer to the specific group, time period, or other key details in describing the study findings, so that readers understand the findings clearly)?
  • Does the discussion briefly review the principal findings of the current study?
  • Are findings are discussed with a reference to relevant and recent literature?
  • If applicable, do the authors provide possible explanations why the results of the present study do not comport with findings from other relevant studies?
  • Are the theoretical implications and practical significance of the study discussed?
  1. Tables and Figures
  • Are the tables and figures appropriate and understandable?
  • Are the tables dan figures following the Orbital: Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia’s template?
  1. Conclusion and Recommendations
  • Does the conclusion succinctly but completely sum up the key takeaway points of the study?
  • Does the conclusion match the objective?
  • Does the conclusion state the research impact and have suggestions for further research?
  1. Reference
  • Does it comply with the orbital: Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia standards? (Minimum of 20 referral sources. Referral sources should provide 80% of journal articles from the last ten years)
  • Does reference use management applications such as Mendeley, EndNote, Zotero, or the other and written by American Psychological Association (APA) 7th style guidelines?

General Manuscripts Content

  • Are there any elements of plagiarism of this paper field?
  • Does it contribute to knowledge?
  • Does the article adhere to the standards of the journal?
  • Is the article in line with the objectives and scope of the journal?


Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. The editor’s decision is final.