Reviewer Guidelines

NEW HOPE Journal
Reviewer Guidelines
What we expect from reviewers, how to give feedback, and what to evaluate in a manuscript.
In this guide: 1. Responsibilities 2. Ethics & Attitude 3. What to Assess 4. Recommendations Review Process

Part 1Reviewers’ Main Responsibilities

Evaluating Scientific Quality: Read and critically assess the manuscript within your area of expertise to ensure high standards of scientific research.
Safeguarding Journal Integrity: Identify invalid research, plagiarism, or questionable data.
Confidentiality: Keep the manuscript under review confidential and do not discuss it with others without the editor’s permission.
Timeliness: Complete the review by the deadline set by the journal managers through OJS (Open Journal Systems).

Part 2Ethics and Attitude When Giving Comments

Objective and Unbiased: Base your assessment on the scientific quality of the manuscript, not on the author’s identity, gender, religion, or background.
Constructive: Give suggestions that are helpful, specific, evidence-based, and that help the author improve the article.
Courteous Language: Avoid discriminatory or insulting language and personal attacks. Distinguish between major issues (methodology/validity) and minor issues (language/format).
Conflict of Interest: Decline the invitation to review if you have a personal or institutional closeness or interest that could bias your judgment.

Part 3Aspects Assessed in the Manuscript

Title & Abstract: Do they clearly reflect the content and key findings of the article?
Introduction: Are the background and problem statement presented accurately and logically?
Methodology: Is the method valid, appropriate, and defensible?
Results & Discussion: Is the data presented clearly and analyzed in depth?
Language & Mechanics: Is the writing in standard, cohesive, and coherent Indonesian or English, with credible citation and reference formatting?
References: Check whether the literature used is current and relevant, and suggest important references the author has not included.

Part 4Types of Decision Recommendations

After completing the review, reviewers give the editor one of the following recommendations:

Accept The manuscript is ready for publication as it is.
Minor Revision Small corrections to grammar, format, or additional explanations.
Major Revision Fundamental improvements to the analysis, data, or methodology that need to be re-examined.
Reject The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific standards or is outside its scope.

ChecklistReview Process

When reviewing an article, please consider the following:

  • Title: Does the title clearly describe the content of the article?
  • Abstract: Does the abstract reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction:
    • Does this section accurately present what the author states and clearly define the problem being studied?
    • In general, the introduction should summarize the relevant research context and explain the research findings—or other findings, if any—offered for discussion. It covers the problem statement or objective; the relevance of the topic; the importance of the topic; the contribution to the literature; the use and development of relevant literature; and the organization of the writing and novelty.
  • Method: Does the author accurately describe how the data were collected?
  • Results and Discussion: In this section, the author must present the research findings in a logical order, with appropriate analysis.
  • Research Implications and Contributions:
    • Research Implications. Does the author accurately explain the implications of the research (practical, theoretical, managerial, or methodological)?
    • Research Contributions. Does the author properly explain the contribution of the research—for example, to the development of knowledge, particularly in the fields of Theology and Christian Religious Education?
  • Conclusion: Is the conclusion consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Does it answer the main research question?
  • References: Is the reference list neatly arranged in a proper format? Have the references been checked with plagiarism detection software? Do most of the references come from recent article sources?
  • Tables and Figures: If the manuscript contains tables or figures, what value do they add to the manuscript, and is the explanation supported by data that readers can easily interpret and understand?
  • Writing Style: Is the manuscript well written, clear, and easy to read? The entire text must use good Indonesian or English, with correct, cohesive, and coherent grammar. It should be easy to understand and engaging to read.
  • Writing Mechanics: Spelling, punctuation, and reference formatting.