The Journal of Islamic Pedagogical Innovation (JIPI) applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research. Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, and confidentially based on the following criteria.

1. Presentation

• Does the manuscript present a coherent and logical argument?
• Are the ideas well organized and clearly communicated?
• Is the manuscript relevant to the aims and scope of JIPI?
• Does the manuscript make a meaningful scholarly contribution?

2. Writing Quality

• Is the manuscript written in clear, concise, and grammatically correct English?
• Is the writing easy to understand and free from ambiguity?
• Are technical terms used appropriately and consistently?

3. Length and Organization

• Is the manuscript appropriately structured and proportioned?
• Are there sections that should be expanded, condensed, merged, or removed?
• Does each section contribute effectively to the overall manuscript?

4. Title

• Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?
• Is the title concise, informative, and specific?
• Does it avoid unnecessary words and abbreviations?
• Does it clearly represent the main topic or contribution of the study?

5. Abstract

Please evaluate whether the abstract clearly includes:

• The background or purpose of the study;
• The research objective;
• The methodology;
• The principal findings; and
• The main conclusion.

6. Introduction

Please assess whether the Introduction clearly presents:

• The background and significance of the study;
• Current state of research and relevant literature;
• Research gap and novelty of the study;
• Research problem or research questions (if applicable);
• The proposed approach to address the problem; and
• The objectives of the research.

7. Methods

Please evaluate whether:

• The research design and methodology are clearly described;
• The procedures are sufficiently detailed to allow replication;
• The participants, setting, instruments, and data collection methods are adequately explained;
• The data analysis techniques are appropriate and clearly presented;
• Ethical considerations are addressed where applicable.

8. Findings and Discussion

Please assess whether:

• The findings are presented clearly using appropriate tables and/or figures when necessary;
• Results directly answer the research objectives or questions;
• The discussion provides meaningful scientific interpretation of the findings;
• The findings are compared with previous relevant studies;
• The theoretical and practical implications are clearly explained;
• The limitations of the study are acknowledged; and
• Suggestions for future research are provided where appropriate.

9. Conclusion

Please evaluate whether the conclusion:

• Clearly answers the research objectives;
• Highlights the main contribution of the study;
• Includes practical implications or recommendations where appropriate; and
• Is written as a concise paragraph without repeating the discussion or using bullet points.

10. References

Please assess whether:

• The references are relevant, current, and sufficient;
• Most references are from reputable scholarly journals published within the last five years;
• The citation style follows the journal's APA guidelines;
• All in-text citations appear in the reference list and vice versa.

11. Overall Recommendation

Please provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments and specific suggestions that will help authors improve the quality, clarity, and scientific contribution of their manuscripts.