Guidelines: 1. If the manuscript written in English, please give your comment in English. If the manuscript written in Bahasa Indonesia, please give your comments in Bahasa Indonesia 2. Please read carefully the paper guidelines and the template. (Link : https://ejournal.ppi.id/index.php/oisaa/about/submissions#authorGuidelines )) 3. First thing to be reviewed is the format of the article, including font, size, style, reference. 4. Second thing to be reviewed is the content of the article which described more detail in document “peer review” below. Peer-review OISAA Journal of Indonesia Emas Guidelines: 1. Please read carefully the paper guidelines and the template. (Link : https://ejournal.ppi.id/index.php/oisaa/about/submissions#authorGuidelines ) 2. One paper may reviewed by 2 reviewer 3. If the manuscript written in English, please give your comment in English. If the manuscript written in Bahasa Indonesia, please give your comments in Bahasa Indonesia. Reviewer Name : Siti Fatimah Department : Material Science University : Yeungnam University Email : fatimah.chemia@gmail.com Manuscript Title : A Novel Real-Time Data Acquisition Using Spreadsheet Excel in Pendulum Experiment Tool with Light-based Timer Category : Technology Brief Review (“Bold” on point you choose) Originality/novelty/ creativity of ideas : 1. Didn’t follow the paper guideline 2. The idea is confusing and no added value to knowledge, no originality 3. No significant originality, but still shows positive contribution to the knowledge 4. New analysis is offered 5. The idea has been found earlier but new solution method and analysis are offered clearly 6. New problem finding, solution and analysis. Both ideas and arguments show a great deal of independent insight and originality. Having significant values to the field of research. Answer well and sufficiently to research questions. : Overall 2. Diffiicult to identify, bland restatement, unclear. Transition are flow/coherence between the objective, methodology, 1. Didn’t follow the paper guideline result, and conclusion confusing and unclear 3. The paper is quite unclear and vague. Paper may wander, with few transitions and little logic. 4. The arguments are generally clear and appropriate, although it may wander occasionally and have a few unclear transitions. 5. The arguments flow logically and sound but there is few unclear transitons 6. All the ideas in the paper flows logically, the arguments are identifieable, reasonable, and sound. Excellent transitions. Analysis and quality of : 1. Didn't follow the paper guideline content 2. The proof and the way of thinking are weak, failed to support statements, poor evidence, incorrect. Failed to identify 3. Lack supporting evidence. Use evidence inappropriately, no clear point 4. Proofs are given to most points but there are some of them are inappropriate. Gap in logic may exist 5. Proofs to support most points are given well and integrated. The analysis makes sense generally 6. Every points are supported with clear logical proof and integrated between each other. Fresh and exciting Grammar, spelling, : style, and choice of words, etc 1. Didn't follow the paper guideline 2. Writing style has a problem in sentence structure, grammar and diction. Frequent major error 3. Some unclear writing styles. Writing style not always clear, active and interesting 4. Writing style is clear, but not always live, active and interesting. Little wordy and redundant. 5. Sentence structure, grammar, spelling and citations are good. Quite live and interesting. Little mistake in sentence grammar 6. Sentence structure, grammar, spelling and citations are excellent. Writing style is live, active and interesting. Not wordy or redundant Contribution of paper : 1. Didn't follow the paper guideline that focuses on how 2. Contribution is unclear, the impact is not significant, and not feasible the idea to be applied in our lives or for solving our problems well written 3. Paper has contribution but it seems difficult to be implemented (unrealistic) 4. Contribution is realistic but not very significant 5. Contribution is realistic but not well written and the impact can be very significant 6. Contribution is realistic and well written. Paper has huge implication for society because of its application. In-depth Review Thank you for your article Does the LDR respond sufficiently quickly to allow the precision of +/- 0.0001s? Many LDR's do not respond this quickly. Page 7 line 23; the authors quote that the trajectory is linear, I would suggest is is approximately linear as this is a sinusoidal motion. I have a little concern over the accuracy to which "g" is quoted using this device, suggesting that the LDR responds instantaneously. This is not a new experiment and was done 30+ years ago using the input ports of the BBC micro using a similar "electronic light switch" or using modern data loggers. What is new is the use of the Arduino linked to the spreadsheet, which makes it very useful. As such the article is interesting but is very little use without the code on page 4, some of which is missing. It also depends on the Excel VBA code. Could the authors please supply both the code and spreadsheet as supplementary files so that others can share the experiment? I would have liked to try this out to verify the quoted accuracy. Finally, please ask a native English speaker to proof read the article as the English needs serious work.