Reviewer Guidelines

Action Research Journal Indonesia (ARJI) deeply appreciates the contribution of peer reviewers in maintaining the high scientific quality of our publications. Reviewers are requested to evaluate submitted manuscripts based on the following comprehensive criteria:

1. Title and Core Content (Novelty Check)

  • Evaluate whether the title and contents of the article are merely ordinary or if they successfully raise contemporary, up-to-date issues that require practical and scholarly intervention.

2. Abstract Evaluation

Check whether the abstract is concise and strictly includes the following essential components:

  • Brief background / rationale.

  • Research objective.

  • Research methods (including research location, timeline, data collection techniques, and data analysis techniques).

  • Main results/findings.

  • Conclusion, implications, and/or recommendations.

  • Appropriate keywords.

3. Introduction Evaluation

Verify that the Introduction section logically flows and completely covers:

  • General and specific topics.

  • Relevant previous literature.

  • Research gap.

  • Study novelty.

  • Research urgency.

  • Explicit research objective.

4. Methodology Evaluation

Ensure the Methods section is detailed, operational, and includes:

  • Research type/design with proper academic citations and justification.

  • Research location and the rationale for its selection.

  • Research timeline/period.

  • Participants/subjects and sampling/selection techniques.

  • Data collection techniques with clear indicators for each instrument.

  • Data trustworthiness/validity (e.g., triangulation) and its technical implementation.

  • Data analysis techniques and how they are applied.

  • Research procedures/stages tailored to the chosen methodology (e.g., action research cycles).

5. Results and Discussion Evaluation

  • Results: Check if empirical findings are clearly presented in accordance with the chosen research method.

  • Discussion: Verify whether the discussion effectively integrates relevant theories, compares findings with prior studies, and explicitly outlines the practical and theoretical implications.

6. Conclusion Evaluation

Check whether the conclusion comprehensively includes:

  • The main conclusion answering the research objective.

  • Research limitations.

  • Concrete recommendations or directions for future research.

7. References (Dapus) Evaluation

  • Ensure every citation in the text matches the reference list (and vice versa).

  • Verify that the manuscript utilizes a minimum of 30 reputable references (dominated by primary sources from the last 10 years).