- About This Publishing System
- Committee
- Contact
- Editorial Board
- Reviewer
- Keynote Speaker
- Author Guidelines
- Reviewer Guidelines
- Competing Interests
- Open Access Policy
- Rights and Licenses
- Focus and Scope
- Publication Ethics
- Peer Review Process
- Plagiarism and Retraction Policy
- Abstracting & Indexing
- Article Processing Charges
Reviewer Guidelines
Review Guidelines
These guidelines are intended for reviewers who contribute to maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the Proceeding of IJC-MaSTEd. Thank you for your valuable time and expertise.
1. Purpose of Peer Review
The peer review process aims to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of manuscripts submitted to the conference proceedings. Reviewers play a critical role in providing constructive, objective, and timely feedback to support editorial decision-making.
2. Review Model
- Review Type: Double-Blind Peer Review
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must not disclose any information about the manuscript or its content to third parties.
3. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively and professionally
- Provide constructive and clear comments to help authors improve their work
- Identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement
- Declare any potential conflicts of interest and decline the review if necessary
- Complete the review within the specified timeframe
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following aspects:
- Originality and Contribution
- Novelty of the research topic
- Contribution to mathematics, science, technology, or education studies
- Relevance to Scope
- Alignment with the conference theme and focus areas
- Significance for academic or practical applications
- Methodology
- Appropriateness and clarity of research design
- Validity and reliability of data and analysis
- Results and Discussion
- Clarity and consistency of results
- Depth of analysis and interpretation
- Logical connection between results and conclusions
- Structure and Clarity
- Organization and coherence of the manuscript
- Quality of English language and academic writing
- References and Ethics
- Use of relevant and up-to-date references
- Compliance with ethical standards and plagiarism policy
5. Review Recommendations
Reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations. All recommendations should be supported by clear and specific comments:
- Accept without revision
- Accept with minor revisions
- Accept with major revisions
- Reject
6. Comments to Authors
Provide feedback in a constructive and respectful manner. Focus on improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Avoid personal remarks or identifying information.
7. Confidential Comments to the Editor
Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor regarding:
- Ethical concerns
- Serious methodological issues
- Conflicts of interest
- Suitability for publication
8. Ethical Considerations
Reviewers must:
- Treat manuscripts as confidential documents
- Not use unpublished material for personal research
- Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical practices
9. Open Access and Licensing Awareness
Reviewers acknowledge that accepted manuscripts will be published as open access under the Creative Commons Attribution–ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.
10. Acknowledgment
The editorial board sincerely appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of the conference proceedings.
