Reviewer Guidelines

PRISMA: Jurnal Penalaran dan Riset Matematika implements a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to maintain objectivity, impartiality, and confidentiality throughout the manuscript evaluation process. Reviewers play an essential role in safeguarding the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of articles published in the journal. Their assessments assist the editorial team in making informed publication decisions while also providing authors with constructive feedback to improve the quality of their manuscripts.

1. Reviewer Criteria

Reviewers appointed by PRISMA should possess expertise that is relevant to the journal’s focus and scope. They are expected to have a demonstrated track record of scientific publications in their respective fields and sufficient academic experience to evaluate manuscripts critically and appropriately. Reviewers must be willing to provide objective, constructive, and ethically responsible assessments and should be committed to completing the review process within the timeframe established by the editorial team.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are responsible for evaluating manuscripts objectively, fairly, and based on their scientific merit. Their comments should be constructive and aimed at helping authors strengthen the quality, clarity, methodology, and scholarly contribution of their work. Any information, ideas, data, or findings obtained through the review process must not be used for personal advantage or for the benefit of other parties. Reviewers are also required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all related information. Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect the independence and objectivity of their assessment.

3. Review Process

The review process begins with an invitation sent by the editorial team via email. Upon receiving the invitation, prospective reviewers may accept or decline the assignment based on their expertise, availability, and ability to complete the review within the specified period. Reviewers who are unable to undertake the assignment are expected to notify the editorial team promptly.

Before conducting an in-depth review, reviewers should perform an initial evaluation of the manuscript. This includes ensuring that no conflict of interest exists with the author or authors and determining whether the manuscript is relevant to the journal’s focus and scope. Reviewers should also assess whether the manuscript meets the minimum standards of scientific quality. If a manuscript contains serious deficiencies that make further review unnecessary, the reviewer may recommend rejection at the initial stage, subject to the final decision of the editor.

During the in-depth review, reviewers are expected to evaluate several key aspects of the manuscript. These include the overall scientific quality and originality of the study, the appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology, the accuracy and clarity of the presentation of results, the depth and relevance of the discussion, and the quality, relevance, and accuracy of the references and citations. Reviewers should also consider whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence presented in the manuscript.

After completing the assessment, reviewers should provide an overall recommendation to the editor. The available recommendations include accept without revision, accept with minor revision, accept with major revision, or reject. The recommendation should be consistent with the strengths and weaknesses identified during the review and supported by clear academic reasoning.

Reviewers are also expected to provide clear, objective, specific, and constructive comments for both the authors and the editors. Comments addressed to authors should be written in polite, respectful, and professional language. When weaknesses, inaccuracies, or methodological concerns are identified, reviewers should, whenever possible, provide practical suggestions for improvement rather than merely pointing out deficiencies.

4. Reviewer Ethics

All reviewers must adhere to high standards of publication ethics. Confidentiality must be strictly maintained, and manuscripts under review must not be shared, distributed, discussed, or disclosed to unauthorized individuals. Reviews must be conducted objectively and should not be influenced by personal attitudes, institutional affiliations, differences in academic perspectives, or preferences regarding particular research topics.

Reviewers should also be attentive to indications of plagiarism, redundant publication, duplicate publication, inappropriate citation practices, or substantial similarities with previously published works. Any suspected ethical violation should be reported confidentially to the editor. Furthermore, reviewers who identify a financial, professional, personal, academic, or institutional conflict of interest that may compromise their impartiality must immediately inform the editor and, where appropriate, decline the review assignment.

5. Review Deadline

Reviewers are generally expected to complete their assessments within 14 to 21 days from the date the review assignment is accepted. This timeframe is intended to maintain an efficient and timely editorial process. If a reviewer requires additional time due to unforeseen circumstances, the reviewer should contact the editorial team as soon as possible to request an extension.

PRISMA: Jurnal Penalaran dan Riset Matematika sincerely appreciates the time, expertise, and scholarly contribution of its reviewers. The commitment of reviewers to providing rigorous, objective, ethical, and constructive evaluations is essential to maintaining the quality, credibility, and continuous development of the journal.