Mohammad Adnan Latief (SCOPUS ID: 6504759948, SINTA ID: 50537, GOOGLE SCHOLAR); Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia

Agus Wardhono (SCOPUS ID: 57208570056, SINTA ID: 6010448GOOGLE SCHOLAR); Universitas PGRI Ronggolawe, Indonesia

Susanto (SINTA ID: 5989712GOOGLE SCHOLAR); Universitas Islam Negeri Sayyid Ali Rahmatullah Tulungagung, Indonesia

Ruruh Mindari (SINTA ID: 5981360GOOGLE SCHOLAR); Universitas Katolik  Widya Mandala Surabaya, Indonesia

Yudhi Arifani (SCOPUS ID : 57205355473, SINTA ID: 5976458, GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia

Slamet Asari (SINTA ID: 6013228GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia

Fatimatul Khikmiyah (SINTA ID: 6085100GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia

Syaiful Huda (SINTA ID: 5999727GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia

Sri Uchtiawati (SINTA ID: 5980569GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia

Afakhrul Masub Bachtiar (SINTA ID: 6014848GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia

Bayu Fitra Prisuna (SINTA ID: 6755122, GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Institut Agama Islam Negeri Pontianak, Indonesia

Sucahyo Mas'an Al Wahid (SINTA ID: 6120482, GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Borneo Tarakan, Indonesia

Suparman,  (SCOPUS ID:57221966589, GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia

Kukuh Dwi Pamuji , (SCOPUS ID : 57211211970, GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam Darul Falah, Indonesia

Galuh Rahayu, (SINTA : 6110231  , GOOGLE SCHOLAR) Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Al Ghazali Cilacap, Indonesia

 Diniya (SINTA:  6696947, GOOGLE SCHOLAR) UIN Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau, Indonesia


 Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Reviewer provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article. The ultimate decision always rests with the editor but reviewers play a significant role in determining the outcome. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

2. Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified toreview the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must betreated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except asauthorized by the editor.

4. Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

5. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Are viewer should also call to the editor's attentionany substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

6. Disclosure and conflict of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected tothe papers.