Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the academic quality, credibility, and integrity of the Journal of Aisyiyah Studies. Through constructive and objective evaluation, reviewers help ensure that published manuscripts meet high standards of scholarly rigor and contribute meaningfully to academic debates on Progressive Womanhood and gendered social transformation. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, clarity of argument, and relevance to the scope of the journal.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers must adhere to the following principles:
Confidentiality
Reviewers are entrusted with unpublished work and must treat every submission as a strictly confidential document. Manuscripts, supplementary files, data, and editorial correspondence may not be shared, forwarded, stored in public folders, uploaded to any external platform, or discussed with colleagues or students without explicit permission from the editorial office. Reviewers must not use any part of the manuscript for personal research, teaching materials, grant proposals, or publication ideas prior to publication. If consultation with a specialist is genuinely necessary, the reviewer should request approval from the editor first and ensure the consultant follows the same confidentiality standards.
Objectivity
Reviews must be conducted with fairness, intellectual rigor, and professional respect. Reviewers should evaluate a manuscript on the quality of its argument, evidence, methodology, and contribution to scholarship—rather than on the author’s identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, religion, gender, or perceived ideological position. Critiques should be specific, evidence-based, and framed as constructive recommendations for improvement. Personal attacks, dismissive language, or sarcastic comments are inappropriate. Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between major issues (e.g., conceptual flaws, weak methods) and minor issues (e.g., style, formatting) and to justify their assessments with clear reasoning.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should decline an invitation to review if any conflict of interest could reasonably compromise their impartiality or be perceived as doing so. Conflicts may arise from personal relationships (friendship, family ties, hostility), institutional proximity (same department, recent affiliation), professional collaboration (co-authorship, joint projects, shared grants), supervisory relationships, or direct financial and political interests connected to the manuscript’s outcomes. When in doubt, reviewers should disclose the situation to the editor and seek guidance before proceeding. Transparency protects the integrity of the review process and maintains trust among authors, editors, and readers in the journal’s decision-making.
Acknowledgement of Sources
A key responsibility of reviewers is to help strengthen scholarly grounding by identifying important literature the manuscript may have overlooked. Reviewers should suggest relevant peer-reviewed sources, foundational works, and recent debates that can improve the manuscript’s theoretical framing, methodological justification, or interpretation of findings. When pointing out missing citations, reviewers should be precise—naming authors, key concepts, and why the sources matter—rather than simply stating that the literature review is weak. Reviewers should also flag potential citation problems, such as inaccurate attribution, excessive reliance on non-scholarly sources, or insufficient engagement with international scholarship, while avoiding coercive citation requests that serve personal interests.
Review Criteria
Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
Originality
Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript offers a meaningful and original contribution to existing scholarship. Originality may take several forms, including the introduction of new empirical findings, innovative theoretical perspectives, fresh interpretations of existing data, or the exploration of underexamined social contexts. A manuscript does not necessarily need to present entirely new topics, but it should provide new insights or analytical depth that advance scholarly conversations. In the context of the Journal of Aisyiyah Studies, reviewers should consider whether the study contributes to ongoing debates related to progressive womanhood, gender transformation, women’s leadership, or women’s roles in science, health, and social movements.
Theoretical Contribution
Reviewers should evaluate the extent to which the manuscript engages with relevant theoretical debates and contributes to the development of conceptual understanding in the field. A strong manuscript does not merely describe social phenomena but situates its arguments within broader scholarly discussions and theoretical frameworks. Reviewers should examine whether the author critically engages with existing literature, identifies conceptual gaps, and articulates how the study advances theoretical reflection on gender, social transformation, or progressive womanhood. Theoretical contribution may involve refining existing concepts, proposing new analytical frameworks, or applying established theories to new contexts in ways that generate fresh academic insights.
Methodological Rigor
Methodological rigor is essential to ensure the credibility and reliability of research findings. Reviewers should assess whether the research design is appropriate for addressing the study’s objectives and research questions. The manuscript should clearly describe the research methods, including data sources, sampling strategies, data collection procedures, and analytical techniques. Reviewers should also consider whether the methods are applied consistently and whether the analysis logically supports the conclusions drawn by the author. Transparency in methodology allows readers to understand how the findings were produced and to evaluate the robustness of the study’s empirical or analytical claims.
Clarity and Structure
A well-written manuscript should present its arguments in a clear, coherent, and logically organized manner. Reviewers should evaluate whether the structure of the article enables readers to follow the development of the author’s argument from introduction to conclusion. Each section should serve a clear purpose and contribute to the overall narrative of the study. The writing should be precise and academically appropriate, avoiding unnecessary jargon or ambiguity. Reviewers may also comment on whether the abstract accurately reflects the content of the article and whether tables, figures, and references are used effectively to support the clarity of the presentation.
Relevance to Journal Scope
Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript aligns with the thematic focus and intellectual orientation of the Journal of Aisyiyah Studies. The journal prioritizes scholarship that engages with questions related to progressive womanhood, gendered social transformation, women’s intellectual traditions, leadership, health, science and technology, and sustainable development. Even when addressing broader social or cultural issues, manuscripts should demonstrate clear relevance to women’s roles, experiences, or contributions within these domains. Reviewers should consider whether the article speaks meaningfully to the journal’s readership and whether it advances discussions consistent with the journal’s mission and scholarly scope.
Recommendation Categories
Reviewers should recommend one of the following decisions:
Accept without Revision
This recommendation indicates that the manuscript meets the journal’s academic standards in terms of originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, and clarity of presentation. Only minimal editorial adjustments may be required during copyediting. The reviewer considers the manuscript suitable for publication in its current form without substantive revisions.
Minor Revision
This recommendation indicates that the manuscript is generally strong but requires small improvements before publication. Revisions may involve clarifying arguments, improving language, strengthening references, or making minor methodological explanations. These revisions do not substantially alter the core argument or findings of the manuscript.
Major Revision
This recommendation indicates that the manuscript has potential but requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication. Issues may include insufficient theoretical engagement, unclear methodology, incomplete data analysis, or structural weaknesses. Authors are expected to substantially revise the manuscript and address the reviewer’s comments before resubmission.
Reject
This recommendation indicates that the manuscript does not meet the journal’s scholarly standards or falls outside the journal’s scope. The manuscript may lack originality, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, or clarity of argument. In such cases, the reviewer recommends that the manuscript should not be considered for publication in the journal.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive suggestions that help authors improve their manuscripts.
