REVIEWER GUIDELINES

AXIOM : Jurnal Pendidikan dan Matematika uses double-blind peer review (see the Review Process Policy). Reviewers help the editors decide on manuscripts and help authors improve their work. These guidelines apply to all reviewers.

1. Review Criteria

Each manuscript is reviewed based on:

  1. The Introduction describes the importance of the study, the novelty of the study, an in-depth review of previous research, and the objective(s) of the study.
  2. The methods and research design are suitable for the objective(s).
  3. The research procedures are described clearly.
  4. The facts are interpreted correctly and the conclusions are supported by the results.
  5. The discussion is compatible with the scope of the study and is linked to previous findings and relevant theories.
  6. The results contribute to education and to the development of science.
  7. The references are of high quality and up to date (at least 25 primary and up-to-date references from the last 8 years).
  8. The manuscript is an original research article and fits the Focus and Scope and Manuscript Type of the journal.
  9. The manuscript includes an ethical statement for research involving human participants and a Data Availability Statement (will be apply to manuscripts processed in the editorial process for Volume 16 Number 1 (2027) onwards).
  10. The language is clear, effective, and easy to understand.

2. Substantive Review Is Required

A review must evaluate the substance of the manuscript. Reviews that consist only of comments on grammar, spelling, formatting, or layout are not accepted, and the editors may return them to the reviewer for completion. Language and layout comments may be added, but only as a supplement to the evaluation of substance.

A substantive review addresses, at a minimum:

  • the research gap, novelty, and significance of the study;
  • the alignment between the objectives, research design, instruments, and data analysis;
  • the validity and reliability of the instruments, or the soundness of the model or procedure used;
  • whether the results are presented accurately and the conclusions are supported by the evidence;
  • the quality of the discussion and its link to previous research and relevant theory;
  • the contribution to mathematics education or applied mathematics.

3. No Use of AI in the Review Process

Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the review of a manuscript. This applies to reading and assessing the manuscript and to writing the review report. Reviewers must not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to any AI tool, because this breaches confidentiality, and the assessment must be the reviewer’s own. Reviewers who are found to have used AI in the review process may be removed from the reviewer list. See also the AI Use Policy.

4. Confidentiality

Manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or copy the manuscript, and must not use its content for their own work before it is published. Reviewers who want to consult a colleague must ask the editors first.

5. Conflict of Interest and Objectivity

  • Reviewers decline the invitation if they have a conflict of interest with the manuscript or its authors, as described in the Conflict of Interest policy.
  • Reviewers do not try to identify the authors and do not contact them directly.
  • Reviewers judge the manuscript on its merits only, without regard to the authors’ origin, institution, gender, or beliefs.
  • Reviewers must not ask authors to cite the reviewer’s own work unless it is clearly relevant to the manuscript.

6. Review Report

  • Comments must be specific, constructive, and respectful, and must give reasons that the authors can act on, referring to the relevant section or page.
  • Comments to the authors and confidential comments to the editors are written separately.
  • The recommendation must be consistent with the comments and is one of: accepted without revision, accepted with minor revision, accepted with major revision, or rejected.
  • The final decision is made by the editors.
  • The review report is submitted through OJS.

7. Timeline

Reviewers are expected to complete the review within the time stated in the invitation (2 weeks). Reviewers who cannot meet the deadline must inform the editors as early as possible.

8. Research Integrity Concerns

Reviewers who suspect plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate submission, unethical research, or other misconduct report it to the editors confidentially, with the reasons. Reviewers do not investigate on their own. Such concerns are handled under the Research Misconduct Allegation and Plagiarism Policy.