Peer Review Process

e-Saintika | Scholarly Evaluation

Independent and Constructive Peer Review

Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmu Pendidikan: e-Saintika, published by Lembaga Penelitian dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (LITPAM), applies a double-anonymous peer-review model to manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening. This policy covers both Original Research Articles and Review Articles within the journal's multidisciplinary scope.

Each manuscript selected for external review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to its subject and methodology. Peer review is intended to assess the manuscript's scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, reliability of evidence, clarity of reporting, and compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical standards. Editorial screening does not guarantee external review, and favorable reviewer recommendations do not automatically guarantee acceptance.

All manuscripts must be written in English and prepared according to the journal's Author Guidelines and applicable publication policies.

e-Saintika | Stage 01

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Following submission, the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor assigns the manuscript to an editor with appropriate subject expertise. The assigned editor conducts an initial evaluation before deciding whether the manuscript is suitable for external peer review.

The initial screening considers:

1. Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope and suitability for the selected article type.
2. Originality, scientific significance, and the clarity of the research or review contribution.
3. Appropriateness and transparency of the methodological approach, as far as these can be assessed at screening.
4. Compliance with manuscript preparation requirements, completeness of required declarations, and adequacy of scholarly reporting.
5. Potential ethical concerns, including suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, undisclosed overlapping publication, or issues involving research participants and data.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, lack a sufficient scholarly contribution, or have substantial unresolved compliance concerns may be returned for correction or declined without external peer review. Editorial screening is a preliminary assessment and is distinct from independent peer review.

e-Saintika | Stage 02

2. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

For manuscripts proceeding to external assessment, the handling editor invites at least two reviewers selected on the basis of disciplinary and methodological expertise, independence, and their ability to undertake a fair evaluation. Reviewers may be drawn from the journal's Peer Reviewer Board or other appropriately qualified specialists.

Invited reviewers are expected to disclose potential conflicts of interest and to decline an invitation if they lack sufficient expertise, cannot review impartially, or cannot meet the agreed schedule. Reviewers are normally allocated two weeks to complete a review after accepting an assignment. Extensions or replacement invitations may be necessary when circumstances require them.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor assigns an additional independent reviewer to provide further assessment. The editor evaluates the reasoning and evidence in all reports rather than deciding by a simple count of recommendations.

e-Saintika | Review Safeguards

3. Double-Anonymity, Confidentiality, and Competing Interests

Under the journal's double-anonymous review procedure, reviewers do not receive the authors' identities and authors do not receive the reviewers' identities. Editors responsible for managing submissions may have access to author information as required for editorial administration. The journal takes reasonable steps to protect anonymity, although complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed when identities can be inferred from a manuscript's content or publicly available information.

1. Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgments, identifying document metadata, and other direct identifiers from the manuscript file supplied for anonymous review, while providing required author details separately through the submission system or other designated files.
2. Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts, related data, and review correspondence. They may not use privileged information for personal or professional advantage.
3. Reviewers must not disclose the manuscript to, or involve, another person in its assessment without prior editorial permission.
4. Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other competing interests and withdraw when independent evaluation cannot reasonably be maintained.
5. Suspected ethical breaches or research misconduct should be reported confidentially to the handling editor rather than communicated directly to the author.

Peer-review integrity is governed by the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.

e-Saintika | Scientific Appraisal

4. Criteria Used in Peer Review

Reviewers are asked to provide objective, specific, and evidence-based assessments. The emphasis of a report depends on whether the manuscript presents original research or a scholarly review, but the following criteria are broadly relevant:

1. Scholarly contribution: originality, relevance of the problem, research gap, and significance to the field.
2. Methodological quality: suitability of study design or review methodology, transparency of procedures, and appropriateness of analytical methods.
3. Evidence and interpretation: accuracy, clarity, and sufficiency of reported findings; alignment between evidence, interpretation, and conclusions.
4. Engagement with literature: use of relevant and credible sources, accurate attribution, and critical positioning against existing scholarship.
5. Research and publication ethics: relevant ethical safeguards, authorship or disclosure concerns, and integrity of data or reporting.
6. Presentation: coherence of argument, clarity of academic English, organization, figures and tables, and compliance with journal instructions.

For Review Articles, reviewers additionally consider the transparency of literature selection and synthesis, the appropriateness of reporting standards where applicable, and whether the review produces substantive conclusions beyond a descriptive summary. Reviewer comments should distinguish essential corrections from suggestions that would merely extend the study beyond its stated scope.

e-Saintika | Decision Categories

5. Review Outcomes and Final Editorial Responsibility

The handling editor evaluates reviewer reports, the manuscript's merits, and the journal's policies before making or recommending an editorial decision within the journal's assigned decision-making authority. Reviewer recommendations inform editorial judgment but do not replace it. Decisions are communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's editorial process.

1. Reject. The manuscript is declined because it does not meet the journal's publication requirements or because identified concerns cannot be adequately resolved in the present submission. A rejection closes the current submission; it is not an invitation to submit a revised version of the same manuscript for continued consideration.
2. Resubmit for Review. Substantial revision or redevelopment is necessary before the manuscript can receive further consideration. Authors may be invited to resubmit a substantially revised manuscript, which will undergo another round of scholarly evaluation. This decision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.
3. Accept with Revisions. The manuscript requires specified minor or major corrections before an acceptance decision can be confirmed. The editor evaluates the revised version and may request further clarification or additional reviewer input. Submission of a revision does not by itself guarantee publication.
4. Accept. The manuscript is accepted for publication on scholarly and editorial grounds, subject to the journal's remaining production and publication requirements, including copyediting, layout, and author proof checking where applicable.

Where reviewer reports conflict materially, the editor considers the additional review and the substantive arguments across reports. Editorial decisions must remain independent of inappropriate commercial influence; article processing charges do not determine acceptance or rejection.

e-Saintika | Author Response

6. Revision, Response to Reviewers, and Reassessment

When revision is requested, the corresponding author is responsible for coordinating an accurate, complete, and timely response with all co-authors. Authors should submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed. When a recommendation is not adopted, the response should provide a reasoned scholarly explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or referred to additional specialists when further independent evaluation is required. The editor may request additional revisions or decline the manuscript if essential concerns remain unresolved. Any deadline for a particular revision is specified in the editorial decision letter or submission system.

e-Saintika | Expected Duration

7. Peer Review Timeline

The journal normally requests that assigned reviewers complete their evaluations within two weeks of accepting the assignment. The peer-review process is estimated to take approximately 4 to 12 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of review rounds, and the nature of revisions required.

These are indicative timeframes, not guaranteed deadlines. Additional reviewer invitations, conflicting reviews, author revision periods, ethical investigations, and other editorial circumstances may extend the process. Acceptance, copyediting, layout editing, and scheduling for publication are separate stages and may require further time.

e-Saintika | Editorial Communication

8. Correspondence and Post-Acceptance Communication

All manuscript-related correspondence should be directed to the assigned handling editor through the journal's online submission system whenever possible. When email correspondence is required, authors should contact the assigned editor and copy the journal at [email protected].

Official editorial communications are normally sent to the corresponding author, who is responsible for informing all co-authors and coordinating responses. Authors should not contact peer reviewers directly about their submission. After acceptance, additional correspondence may be required for copyediting, layout preparation, proof correction, and publication arrangements.

For preparation and submission requirements, consult the Author Guidelines and the Submissions page. Information about reviewer expertise is provided on the Peer Reviewer Board page.