Mohammad Adnan Latief (SCOPUS ID: 6504759948, SINTA ID: 50537, GOOGLE SCHOLAR); Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Agus Wardhono (SCOPUS ID: 57208570056, SINTA ID: 6010448, GOOGLE SCHOLAR); Universitas PGRI Ronggolawe, Indonesia
Susanto (SINTA ID: 5989712, GOOGLE SCHOLAR); Universitas Islam Negeri Sayyid Ali Rahmatullah Tulungagung, Indonesia
Ruruh Mindari (SINTA ID: 5981360, GOOGLE 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: 6013228, GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia
Fatimatul Khikmiyah (SINTA ID: 6085100, GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia
Syaiful Huda (SINTA ID: 5999727, GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia
Sri Uchtiawati (SINTA ID: 5980569, GOOGLE SCHOLAR), Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia
Afakhrul Masub Bachtiar (SINTA ID: 6014848, GOOGLE 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.
