The 7th International Conference on Educational Science in Industry Era 5.0 (ICONSEIR) 2025

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
ICONSEIR 2025
The 7th International Conference on Educational Science in Industry Era 5.0

Theme: Navigating the Future of Education (Building Excellent Character Based on Local Wisdom and Global Technology)
Conference Date: October 15, 2025
Organized by: Universitas Negeri Medan, Indonesia

1. INTRODUCTION
Thank you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer for ICONSEIR 2025. Your expertise and commitment to maintaining high academic standards are essential to the success of this conference. This document provides guidelines to ensure a consistent, fair, and constructive review process.

1.1 Purpose of Peer Review
The peer review process aims to:
• Ensure the quality, originality, and validity of submitted papers
• Provide constructive feedback to authors to improve their work
• Maintain the academic integrity and reputation of the conference
• Identify papers that make significant contributions to the field of educational science

1.2 Review Process
ICONSEIR 2025 employs a double-blind peer review process, where both reviewer and author identities are concealed to ensure impartiality and objectivity.

2. REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Ethical Conduct
As a reviewer, you are expected to:
• Maintain confidentiality of all materials received for review
• Disclose any conflict of interest that may affect your impartiality
• Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback
• Complete reviews within the specified timeframe
• Decline to review papers outside your area of expertise
• Not use information from the manuscript for personal advantage

2.2 Confidentiality
• All submitted manuscripts are confidential documents
• Do not share, discuss, or distribute manuscripts with others without permission
• Do not retain copies of manuscripts after completing your review
• Do not use ideas or data from manuscripts under review in your own work

2.3 Conflict of Interest
You must decline to review if you:
• Have collaborated with the authors in the past 3 years
• Work at the same institution as the authors
• Have a personal or professional relationship with the authors
• Have a financial interest in the research outcome
• Feel unable to provide an objective assessment

2.4 Timeliness
• Complete your review within 14 days of receiving the manuscript
• Notify the conference committee immediately if you cannot meet the deadline
• Request an extension if needed, but do so as early as possible

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Evaluate each manuscript based on the following criteria:
3.1 Relevance and Scope (Weight: 15%)
• Does the paper align with the conference theme and sub-topics?
• Is the topic appropriate for ICONSEIR 2025?
• Does it contribute to the field of educational science?
Questions to consider:
• Is the research relevant to the conference theme?
• Does it address important issues in education in Industry Era 5.0?

3.2 Originality and Contribution (Weight: 25%)
• Does the paper present new ideas, methods, or findings?
• What is the significance of the contribution to the field?
• How does it advance existing knowledge?
Questions to consider:
• Is this work original and not previously published?
• Does it offer fresh perspectives or innovative approaches?
• What is the potential impact of this research?

3.3 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework (Weight: 15%)
• Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?
• Are relevant theoretical frameworks appropriately applied?
• Are citations appropriate and properly formatted?
Questions to consider:
• Has the author engaged with current literature?
• Are key studies and theories properly referenced?
• Is the theoretical foundation sound?

3.4 Research Design and Methodology (Weight: 20%)
• Is the research design appropriate for the research questions?
• Are methods clearly described and justified?
• Are data collection and analysis procedures sound?
• Are ethical considerations addressed?
Questions to consider:
• Can the research be replicated based on the description provided?
• Are the methods appropriate for the research objectives?
• Is the sample size and selection appropriate?
• Are validity and reliability addressed?

3.5 Results and Discussion (Weight: 15%)
• Are results clearly presented and well-organized?
• Are findings properly interpreted and discussed?
• Are tables, figures, and charts clear and necessary?
• Does the discussion connect findings to existing literature?
Questions to consider:
• Are the results logically presented?
• Is the interpretation of findings justified by the data?
• Are limitations acknowledged?
• Are alternative explanations considered?

3.6 Conclusion and Implications (Weight: 5%)
• Does the conclusion summarize key findings effectively?
• Are practical and/or theoretical implications discussed?
• Are recommendations for future research provided?
Questions to consider:
• Does the conclusion answer the research questions?
• Are implications for educational practice or policy clear?

3.7 Language and Presentation (Weight: 5%)
• Is the paper well-written and clearly organized?
• Is the English language usage appropriate and grammatically correct?
• Does the paper follow the required format and style?
• Are references complete and properly formatted (APA 7th edition)?
Questions to consider:
• Is the paper easy to read and understand?
• Are there significant language or grammatical errors?
• Does it follow the submission guidelines?

4. REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
After evaluating the manuscript, provide one of the following recommendations:

4.1 Accept
The paper meets all quality standards and makes a significant contribution. Only minor editorial changes may be needed.
Use when:
• The paper is well-written and methodologically sound
• Findings are significant and well-presented
• Only minor language or formatting issues exist

4.2 Minor Revisions
The paper has merit but requires small improvements before acceptance. Authors can address issues without major restructuring.
Use when:
• The paper is fundamentally sound but needs improvements
• Issues can be addressed without additional data collection
• Clarifications or small additions are needed
• Minor methodological concerns exist

4.3 Major Revisions
The paper has potential but requires substantial improvements. A second review may be necessary after revision.
Use when:
• Significant methodological concerns exist
• Literature review needs substantial expansion
• Results need better presentation or interpretation
• Theoretical framework needs strengthening
• Major restructuring is required

4.4 Reject
The paper does not meet the conference standards and cannot be revised adequately within the timeframe.
Use when:
• The paper is outside the conference scope
• Methodological flaws are fundamental and cannot be corrected
• The work lacks originality or significance
• Ethical concerns exist
• The quality is significantly below conference standards

5. WRITING YOUR REVIEW
5.1 Structure of the Review
Your review should include:

A. Summary (100-150 words)
• Brief overview of the paper's purpose and main findings
• Your overall impression

B. Strengths (3-5 bullet points)
• Highlight what the paper does well
• Acknowledge positive aspects

C. Weaknesses and Areas for Improvement (detailed)
• Identify specific issues
• Provide clear, actionable suggestions
• Reference specific sections or page numbers
• Be constructive and respectful

D. Specific Comments by Section
• Introduction: clarity of research problem and objectives
• Literature Review: comprehensiveness and currency
• Methodology: appropriateness and clarity
• Results: presentation and interpretation
• Discussion: depth and connection to literature
• Conclusion: effectiveness and implications
• References: completeness and formatting

E. Minor Issues
• Language and grammar issues
• Formatting problems
• Citation errors

F. Recommendation
• State your recommendation clearly
• Justify your decision based on evaluation criteria

5.2 Tone and Language
• Be constructive and respectful at all times
• Focus on the work, not the author
• Use phrases like "The paper would benefit from..." or "Consider..."
• Avoid harsh or dismissive language
• Provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement
• Balance criticism with recognition of strengths

5.3 Examples of Constructive Feedback
Instead of: "The methodology is weak."
Write: "The methodology section would benefit from more detail about the sampling procedure and justification for the sample size. Consider adding information about how participants were recruited and selected."

Instead of: "The literature review is inadequate."
Write: "The literature review should be expanded to include recent studies (2020-2025) on AI in education, particularly regarding ethical considerations. Key authors in this field, such as X and Y, should be referenced."

Instead of: "The writing is poor."
Write: "The paper would benefit from professional language editing to improve clarity and flow. Specific areas needing attention include the abstract (currently too dense) and the results section (which would benefit from more transitional sentences)."

6. PLAGIARISM AND ETHICAL CONCERNS
6.1 Detecting Plagiarism
If you suspect plagiarism:
• Identify specific passages that appear to be copied
• Provide sources if you recognize the original text
• Report concerns to the conference committee immediately
• Do not contact the author directly

6.2 Other Ethical Issues
Report to the conference committee if you identify:
• Duplicate or overlapping publications
• Data fabrication or manipulation
• Failure to obtain ethical approval for research involving human subjects
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Inappropriate authorship (e.g., gift authorship)

7. REVIEW TIMELINE
7.1 Important Dates
• Review invitation sent: Upon paper submission
• Review deadline: 14 days from receiving manuscript
• Author revision period: 10 days (if revisions required)
• Final decision notification: Before conference date

7.2 If You Need More Time
• Contact the conference committee immediately
• Provide a realistic new deadline
• Extensions are granted on a case-by-case basis

8. AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR REVIEW
8.1 Author Responses
• You may be asked to review revised manuscripts
• Authors may respond to your comments
• The conference committee makes the final decision

8.2 Recognition
• Your contribution as a reviewer will be acknowledged in the conference proceedings (unless you prefer to remain anonymous)
• You will receive a certificate of appreciation for your service

9. REVIEW SUBMISSION
9.1 How to Submit
Submit your review through the conference online system at: https://iconseir.unimed.ac.id/
9.2 Review Form Sections
• Reviewer information
• Overall recommendation
• Scores for each evaluation criterion
• Confidential comments to the committee (optional)
• Comments to the authors
• Specific suggestions for improvement

10. CONTACT INFORMATION
For questions or concerns about the review process, please contact:
ICONSEIR 2025 Conference Secretariat
Contact Persons:
• Nova: +62 812-6303-3561
• Asiah: +62 822-7773-1412
Website: https://iconseir.unimed.ac.id/
Address:
Universitas Negeri Medan
Jl. Willem Iskandar Pasar V Medan Estate
Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia