PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer Review Process

Every manuscript that is submitted to Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran (DIAJAR) goes through editorial screening and peer review, so that only work of good quality and validity is published. The journal uses a double blind review model: the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Experts in the subject assess each manuscript for its scientific merit, its originality, its relevance to education and learning, and its fit with the scope of the journal.

No.	Stage	What happens	Typical time
1	Initial evaluation	The editors check the scope, the format, the originality, and the ethics of the manuscript.	Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers
2	Assignment of reviewers	Independent reviewers are invited and the manuscript is anonymized.	Within 2 weeks
3	Review	The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend a decision.	Usually 2 weeks
4	Decision	The Editor in Chief decides: accept, revise, or reject.	On average 2 to 3 months from submission to the first decision
5	Revision	The authors revise the manuscript, and the revision is checked.	2 weeks for a minor revision, 4 weeks for a major revision
6	Publication	The final version is copyedited and formatted, and then it is published.	On average 3 to 6 months from acceptance to publication

The times above are estimates and not guarantees. The actual time depends on the availability of the reviewers, on the complexity of the manuscript, and on the number of review rounds. The planned dates of the issues are given on the Publication Frequency page.

1. Initial Evaluation

The editors first check whether the manuscript can be sent to reviewers.

Scope and focus. The manuscript must fit the scope of the journal and must meet the conditions for publication.
Format. The editorial office checks the format, the citation style, and the compliance with the Author Guidelines and the Manuscript Preparation instructions. A manuscript that does not comply is returned to the authors for reformatting and resubmission.
Originality. The manuscript is screened for similarity, as described in the Plagiarism and Research Integrity Policy.
Ethics. For research with participants, the editors check that the manuscript describes the permission and the consent that were obtained, and that it contains the required statements, as described in Publication Ethics.

A similarity result is a screening signal and never proof of plagiarism. A high result leads to an examination by an editor and not to an automatic rejection. Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are sent to reviewers.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

The assigned editor invites at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the field and who have experience in the research area of the manuscript. Reviewers should come from institutions that are different from the institution of the corresponding author. The reviewers decide whether to accept the invitation on the basis of their expertise, their availability, and any conflict of interest. The journal aims to assign the reviewers within two weeks. Researchers who would like to review for DIAJAR can register through the Call for Reviewer form, and the reviewers of the journal are listed on the Reviewer Board page.

2.1 Anonymity

Before the manuscript is sent to the reviewers, the editorial office removes the names and the affiliations of the authors, the acknowledgements, and the statements about the contributions of the authors from the manuscript. These items are kept in a separate title page file that the reviewers do not receive. The Acknowledgements section also contains the funding statement and the competing interests statement, and the editors keep these statements for their own use. The editorial office also removes personal information from the properties of the file.

2.2 Conflicts of interest

A reviewer or an editor who has a conflict of interest with a manuscript must decline the invitation or must not take part in the decision, as described in the Conflicts of Interest policy. A manuscript that is submitted by an editor or by a member of the editorial board is handled by an editor who is not involved in it, and the author does not take part in the evaluation or in the decision.

3. Review

Reviewers evaluate the scientific quality, the originality, the validity, and the relevance of the manuscript. They are usually given two weeks, and the maximum is two weeks unless the extension is agreed with the editorial secretariat, as stated in the Publication Ethics policy. The reviewers give constructive feedback and recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. The following table shows the main questions that the reviewers consider. They follow the structure of the article template.

Part of the manuscript	Questions for the reviewer
Title and abstract	Do they describe the study accurately, and do the abstract and the keywords make the contribution clear?
Introduction	Are the background, the state of the art, the gap in knowledge, and the novelty clear, and is the research question or objective stated?
Research Method	Are the design, the participants, the instruments, and the analysis appropriate and described well enough to be repeated? Is the validity and the reliability of the instruments explained? Are permission and consent for the participants described?
Results and Discussion	Are the results correct and presented clearly? Does the discussion relate the results to earlier research and to theory, and does it explain the meaning for teaching and learning?
Conclusion	Is the conclusion supported by the results, and does it answer the research question?
References	Are the references accurate, up to date, and in the required style, and is relevant earlier work cited?
Ethics and integrity	Are there any signs of plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed use of generative AI, or other concerns?

The reviewers must keep the manuscript confidential, must not upload it to a generative AI tool, and may use such a tool only to improve the language of their own report, as described in the Generative AI Policies.

4. Decision

The Editor in Chief makes the final decision, on the basis of the comments of the reviewers and of the conditions for publication. If the comments of the reviewers differ significantly, the academic editor may invite an additional reviewer before a decision is made. The possible decisions are shown below.

Decision	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript is accepted. It goes to copyediting and publication.
Minor revision	Small changes are needed. The authors have 2 weeks.
Major revision	Substantial changes are needed. The authors have 4 weeks.
Reject	The manuscript is not accepted for publication in DIAJAR.

The decision and the comments of the reviewers are sent to the authors through the online system, and the comments stay anonymous. Fees never influence a decision. The editors decide on the basis of the quality and the relevance of the work, as stated in Publication Ethics, and information on the charges is given on the Author Fees page.

5. Revision Process

A manuscript that is accepted with revisions must be revised and resubmitted. The authors normally have two weeks for a minor revision and four weeks for a major revision. A resubmission must contain two items.

The revised manuscript, with the changes highlighted.
A rebuttal letter (a response to the reviewers) that answers each comment and explains each change, or explains why a comment was not followed.

A major revision normally goes to a second round of review by the same reviewers, who check whether their comments have been addressed. For a minor revision, a further review is optional. The authors must tell the editors before the deadline if they need more time.

6. Complaints and Appeals

Authors who think that a decision was based on a mistake or on an unfair review can write to the editorial office at jurnal.diajar@gmail.com with the subject line Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier]. The letter should explain the reasons clearly and give evidence, and it should respond to the specific points of the decision. Disagreement alone is not a reason for reconsideration. An editor who was not involved in the original decision examines the appeal and may ask for an additional opinion. The decision on the appeal is final, and a manuscript can be appealed only once. Concerns about misconduct in the review process are handled under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

7. Publication

After acceptance, the authors submit the final version of the manuscript. It is copyedited and formatted for publication. After publication, changes to the article follow the Correction and Retraction policy, and scholarly comments follow the Post Publication Discussion procedure.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Peer Review

DIAJAR is committed to high standards of publication ethics and to the prevention of malpractice in the peer review process. The full duties of editors and reviewers are described in Publication Ethics. The main commitments are the following.

Commitment	What it means
Confidentiality	Information about a manuscript and about its review is strictly confidential. Editors, reviewers, and other persons involved must not disclose it.
Objectivity and impartiality	Reviews are based on merit and are free from personal bias and conflicts of interest. They give constructive feedback.
Timeliness	Reviews are completed within a reasonable time, and the authors are informed promptly of the status of their manuscript.
Transparency and accountability	Reviewers give clear and reasoned comments. Editors decide fairly, on the basis of the comments of the reviewers and their own expertise.
Conflicts of interest	Editors and reviewers declare possible conflicts, and the journal takes steps to keep the evaluation unbiased.
Plagiarism and misconduct	Editors and reviewers watch for plagiarism, fabrication of data, and other misconduct, and report suspected cases promptly, as described in the Allegations of Misconduct policy.
Recognition of reviewers	The journal recognizes the contribution and the expertise of its reviewers and credits them appropriately.