Reviewer's Guidelines

Datokarama English Education Journal (deejournal) upholds the highest standards of academic rigor and ethical review. Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the scholarly excellence, fairness, and integrity of the journal. This document outlines the responsibilities, expectations, and ethical commitments required of all reviewers engaged in our double-blind peer review process.

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Gatekeepers of Quality: Reviewers assess the academic rigor, originality, and methodological soundness of submitted manuscripts to ensure only high-quality scholarship is published.
  • Constructive Mentors: Reviewers provide detailed, balanced, and actionable feedback to assist authors in improving their manuscripts, even when recommending rejection.
  • Ethical Stewards: Reviewers are responsible for identifying ethical issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication and reporting them to the editorial team.
  • Confidentiality Observers: All materials must be treated as confidential. Reviewers should not share or discuss manuscripts with third parties.
  • Timely Respondents: Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within the stipulated timeframe (usually within 2–4 weeks).

2. Subject Relevance and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in English Language Education, English Language Teaching, Linguistics, or Literature. All reviews are conducted under a double-blind review model, preserving the anonymity of both authors and reviewers.

Reviewers must:

  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest (personal, professional, institutional).
  • Decline review invitations when the manuscript lies outside their area of expertise.
  • Maintain professional tone, avoiding biased, offensive, or dismissive language.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate submissions based on the following dimensions:

  • Relevance to Journal Scope: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s thematic and disciplinary coverage?
  • Originality and Contribution: Does the work offer novel insights, theoretical advancement, or pedagogical innovation?
  • Structural and Logical Coherence: Is the argument well-organized, with clear connections between objectives, methods, results, and conclusions?
  • Methodological Rigor: Are the research methods sound, appropriately applied, and well-documented?
  • Literature Engagement: Are relevant and up-to-date sources cited, and does the manuscript position itself within the scholarly conversation?
  • Language and Academic Style: Is the writing clear, grammatically correct, and consistent with academic register?
  • Ethical Conduct: Are proper citations provided, and is there evidence of research ethics (especially in studies involving human subjects)?

4. File Annotation and In-Text Feedback

Reviewers are strongly encouraged to annotate the manuscript using PDF or DOCX commenting tools. This helps the author pinpoint exactly where improvements are needed and reinforces the clarity of the written review.

In-text annotations should include:

  • Clarification requests or identification of vague passages
  • Suggestions to improve style, grammar, or terminology
  • Recommendations for more appropriate citations or literature framing
  • Noting errors in data, inconsistencies in findings, or unsupported claims

5. Structured Reviewer Form

Reviewers are required to complete a structured digital review form consisting of:

  • Quantitative Ratings on each evaluation category (e.g., originality, methodology, references)
  • Public Comments to Author: Constructive, respectful feedback addressing both strengths and areas for improvement
  • Confidential Comments to Editor: Concise evaluation, ethical concerns, or private recommendations

6. Review Outcome Recommendations

Reviewers must recommend one of the following editorial outcomes:

  • Accept Submission – Suitable for publication with minimal or no revisions.
  • Minor Revisions Required – The paper is publishable pending small improvements (language, formatting, citation).
  • Major Revisions Required – The core of the work is sound, but substantial changes are required.
  • Reject – The manuscript is unsuitable due to serious flaws or lack of scholarly contribution.

Decisions must be justified with specific references to the manuscript content and grounded in academic standards.

7. Timeline and Professionalism

The standard review deadline is 2–4 weeks. Reviewers should:

  • Confirm availability within 5–7 days of invitation
  • Notify the editorial office immediately if an extension is needed or if withdrawal from the review is necessary

8. Anonymity and Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must not disclose their identity or attempt to discover the identity of the author.
  • Manuscripts, data, or findings should not be shared, cited, or used before publication.
  • All review communications are confidential and intended for editorial purposes only.

9. Contact and Support

Reviewers seeking clarification on journal policies, ethical concerns, or evaluation criteria may contact the editorial team at:

deejournal@uindatokarama.ac.id

10. Acknowledgment

We sincerely thank our reviewers for their scholarly service, intellectual contribution, and commitment to academic excellence. Your engagement is essential to the development of a vibrant and ethical research community.