Focus and Scope Author Guidelines Review Process Publication Ethics Plagiarism Policy Copyright & License Open Access Policy Archiving AI Policy Contact Us Retraction or Corrections Letter of Acceptance (LoA)
Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
The Pedagogik Journal of Islamic Elementary School applies a double-blind peer review process to assess the scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. Each manuscript that passes initial screening is independently assessed by at least two qualified reviewers. Reviewers provide recommendations, while the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor is responsible for editorial decisions.
The editorial team checks anonymization before sending files to reviewers and removes identifying details from reports shared with authors. Reviewers who recognize the authors must inform the editor so that any potential conflict of interest can be assessed.
Stages and Mechanism of the Review Process
1
Stage 1: Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscript through Open Journal Systems (OJS), together with the required metadata. Submissions must comply with the Author Guidelines. Authors must disclose funding, conflicts of interest, and relevant research ethics information, where applicable.
2
Stage 2: Administrative Check, Editorial Screening, and Similarity Check
The managing editor or editorial team checks completeness, formatting, anonymization, relevance to the journal's scope, basic scientific quality, and research ethics information. The manuscript is also screened using Turnitin in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Policy. The editor may reject the manuscript without external review, return it for corrections, or forward it to peer review. Passing this stage does not constitute acceptance for publication.
3
Stage 3: Reviewer Assignment and Double-Blind Peer Review
The handling editor assigns at least two independent reviewers whose expertise matches the manuscript's subject and methods. Reviewers assess the anonymized manuscript separately using the criteria stated below and submit substantive comments and a recommendation through OJS. The review deadline is 14 calendar days from acceptance of the review invitation. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality. A reviewer who cannot complete the assessment must promptly notify the editor so that an extension or replacement can be arranged.
4
Stage 4: Editorial Assessment and Communication of Review Results
The handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and communicates the editorial decision and anonymized comments to the corresponding author through OJS. The decision may be Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. If reports differ substantially or do not adequately address the manuscript's quality, the editor may request clarification or seek an additional independent assessment from a third reviewer. Decisions consider the substance and reasoning of the reports rather than a simple majority vote.
5
Stage 5: Author Revision and Reassessment
Authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed, including a reasoned explanation for any recommendation not adopted. Minor revisions are due within 14 calendar days and major revisions within 28 calendar days of the decision notification. Extensions may be requested before the deadline. The editor checks minor revisions and may return them to reviewers when necessary. Major revisions are normally returned to the original reviewers, who are asked to complete reassessment within 14 calendar days. Additional review rounds may be required.
6
Stage 6: Final Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor makes the final decision after considering the manuscript, completed reviews, revised versions, author responses, and any unresolved ethical concerns. A manuscript can be accepted only after at least two independent reviews have been completed and the editor determines that the publication requirements are met. The editor may accept the manuscript, request further revision, or reject it, and communicates the decision and its reasons through OJS. An editor with a conflict of interest must recuse themselves, and an independent editor handles the manuscript.
7
Stage 7: Production and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, language editing, typesetting, and proofreading. Authors review the proofs and respond to queries before the article is published online in the appropriate journal issue. Production begins only after a formal editorial acceptance decision; submitting a manuscript or completing a review round does not guarantee publication.
Manuscript Review Criteria
Reviewers provide evidence-based, constructive assessments of the following aspects:
- Relevance and contribution: Alignment with the journal's focus and scope, significance of the research problem, and contribution to elementary education.
- Originality and novelty: Originality of the work, a clearly identified research gap, and a meaningful contribution beyond existing studies.
- Theoretical foundation and literature: Appropriateness of the theoretical framework, engagement with relevant literature, and accuracy of citations.
- Methodological rigor: Suitability and transparency of the research design, participant selection or data sources, instruments, procedures, and analytical methods. For review or conceptual articles, the appropriateness and transparency of the synthesis or argumentation are assessed.
- Results and evidence: Clarity, accuracy, and consistency of the findings, adequacy of supporting evidence, and appropriate presentation of tables and figures.
- Discussion and conclusions: Sound interpretation of the findings, engagement with previous research, acknowledgment of limitations, and conclusions supported by the evidence.
- Research and publication ethics: Appropriate consent and ethical approval where required, protection of participants, transparent disclosures, and the absence of indications of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or duplicate publication.
- Organization, language, and references: Coherence of the manuscript, clarity of academic language, completeness of reporting, and compliance with the journal's reference and presentation requirements.
Reviewer Qualifications and Number of Reviewers
The editorial team selects reviewers from universities, research institutions, or other relevant scholarly communities based on the following qualifications:
- Academic qualification: Hold at least a master's degree in a relevant discipline; a doctoral qualification is preferred.
- Subject expertise: Demonstrate expertise relevant to the manuscript through research experience and publications in the corresponding field.
- Methodological competence: Be capable of evaluating the research design, analysis, and reporting used in the manuscript.
- Independence: Have no conflict of interest that could compromise an impartial assessment. Reviewers must disclose relevant institutional, collaborative, personal, or financial relationships and decline assignments when impartiality cannot be maintained.
- Professional responsibility: Agree to provide constructive, confidential, and timely reviews and to use unpublished manuscript information only for the assigned review.
Each manuscript undergoing peer review requires at least two completed, independent reviewer reports. An additional reviewer may be appointed when reports substantially conflict, further expertise is needed, or an original reviewer becomes unavailable. Reviewer recommendations inform the editor's assessment; the final decision remains the responsibility of the editor.
Review and Revision Deadlines
Initial peer review
14 calendar days
From the date the reviewer accepts the review invitation.
Minor revision by authors
14 calendar days
From the date of the editorial decision notification.
Major revision by authors
28 calendar days
From the date of the editorial decision notification.
Reassessment by reviewers
14 calendar days
From the date the reviewer receives the revised manuscript for reassessment.
Deadlines are recorded in OJS. Reviewers and authors who require additional time must contact the handling editor before the deadline; any approved extension includes a revised due date. Overdue reviewers may be reminded or replaced. If an author misses a revision deadline, the editor contacts the author before deciding whether to close the submission. The total processing time depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds.
Similarity Screening and Plagiarism Assessment
All submitted manuscripts are screened using Turnitin during initial editorial screening. Revised manuscripts may be checked again when substantive changes or concerns warrant further screening, including before final acceptance.
The editor examines the similarity report in context, including the matched passages, attribution, quotations, references, and possible overlap with the authors' previous publications. A similarity percentage is an indicator for further examination and is not, by itself, proof of plagiarism or a guarantee of originality.
Depending on the nature and extent of the overlap, the editor may request clarification, require correction of attribution or overlapping text, or reject the manuscript. Suspected plagiarism and duplicate publication are handled under the journal's Plagiarism Policy.
Editorial Decision-Making
The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor makes decisions based on the manuscript's quality and relevance, the reasoning in the reviewer reports, the adequacy of author responses, and compliance with ethical requirements. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; decisions are not determined solely by a vote or a similarity score.
- Accept: The manuscript meets the required scholarly and ethical standards and may proceed to production.
- Minor Revision: Limited changes are required. The handling editor evaluates the revision and may consult the reviewers again when necessary.
- Major Revision: Substantial changes are required to the methods, analysis, interpretation, or reporting. The revised manuscript is normally returned to the original reviewers; revision does not guarantee acceptance.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scope, scholarly quality, methodological, or ethical requirements, or substantial concerns remain unresolved after revision.
Editorial decisions and the reasons for them are communicated through OJS. An additional review may be requested when the available evidence is insufficient. Editors must not handle their own manuscripts or manuscripts involving a conflict of interest; such submissions are assigned to an independent editor and follow the same review requirements.
