Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Essential Competencies in Education (IJECE), published by Lembaga Penelitian dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (LITPAM), Indonesia, is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, independent, and transparent peer review process to ensure the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of published articles.

IJECE applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process, to the extent reasonably practicable.

Each manuscript proceeding to peer review is evaluated by at least two independent and qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

The peer review process is coordinated by the editorial team, while the final decision regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

1. Manuscripts Subject to Peer Review

IJECE applies editorial screening and peer review to scholarly manuscripts submitted under its accepted article categories:

Original Research Articles
Review Articles
Commentaries
Theoretical or Conceptual Articles

The evaluation criteria are adapted to the characteristics of each manuscript type. Original research is evaluated with particular attention to methodological rigor and the validity of research findings, while review, commentary, and conceptual contributions are assessed according to their scholarly foundation, analytical rigor, originality, coherence, and contribution to educational knowledge.

Regardless of manuscript type, submissions must demonstrate relevance to the journal's aims and scope and comply with applicable standards of scholarly publishing and research integrity.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team before being considered for external peer review.

The initial screening examines:

Relevance to the aims and scope of IJECE.
Compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript preparation requirements.
Appropriateness of the manuscript type and scholarly contribution.
Clarity, completeness, and overall quality of the submitted manuscript.
Originality and potential textual overlap, including similarity screening using Turnitin.
Compliance with applicable authorship, research ethics, and publication integrity requirements.
Availability of the information necessary to conduct a fair and meaningful peer review.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy essential editorial requirements may be returned for correction or declined before external peer review.

A manuscript's progression to peer review does not guarantee its eventual acceptance for publication.

3. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent peer reviewers with appropriate academic expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on considerations including:

Expertise relevant to the manuscript's topic, theoretical framework, or methodology.
Scholarly experience and familiarity with current research in the relevant field.
Ability to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
Independence from the authors and the editorial handling of the manuscript.
Absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality.
Availability to complete the assigned review within the expected period.

Reviewers may be selected from the journal's established Reviewer Board or other qualified scholars whose expertise is appropriate for the submitted manuscript.

The editorial team is responsible for considering potential conflicts of interest and avoiding reviewer assignments that could compromise the independence and credibility of the evaluation process.

IJECE uses a double-blind peer review model to support impartial scholarly assessment.

Under this model:

The identities of the authors are concealed from reviewers during manuscript evaluation, to the extent reasonably practicable.
The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on scholarly merit, methodological or analytical rigor, originality, and relevance.
The editorial team manages communication between authors and reviewers through the journal's editorial procedures.

Authors are responsible for preparing anonymized manuscript files for review, including removing identifying information from the main manuscript where required.

The editorial team may request corrections if author-identifying information remains in materials intended for blinded assessment.

The double-blind process is intended to reduce potential bias, although complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed in every circumstance, particularly when related work is publicly available.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, constructive, and academically justified assessments.

Depending on the manuscript type, reviewers are requested to consider:

The relevance of the manuscript to the scope of IJECE.
The originality, significance, and clarity of its scholarly contribution.
The adequacy and relevance of the theoretical or conceptual foundation.
The appropriateness and rigor of the research design, analytical approach, or review methodology, where applicable.
The validity and transparency of the findings, interpretations, and conclusions.
The adequacy and currency of supporting scholarly literature.
The coherence of the arguments and the quality of academic writing.
The implications for educational theory, research, assessment, policy, or practice.
Compliance with relevant ethical standards and scholarly attribution requirements.

Reviewers should provide clear recommendations and sufficiently detailed comments to help editors make informed decisions and assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Reviewers must treat unpublished manuscripts as confidential and must not use privileged information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

Any actual or potential conflict of interest should be disclosed to the handling editor before the review proceeds.

Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or upload confidential manuscript content to unauthorized third parties or external automated services.

6. Review Timeline

Reviewers are normally expected to complete and submit their review reports within two weeks of accepting the review assignment.

The overall peer review process, including related editorial assessment, generally takes approximately 4 to 12 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of review rounds required.

These timeframes are estimates rather than guaranteed deadlines.

Additional time may be required when:

Appropriate reviewers are unavailable or decline review invitations.
Reviewers require additional time to conduct a thorough evaluation.
Reviewer recommendations differ substantially.
Authors are required to undertake major revisions.
Additional peer review rounds or editorial consultations are necessary.
Concerns regarding research integrity require further examination.

The editorial team aims to communicate significant delays to authors and maintain a timely and responsible evaluation process.

7. Handling Divergent Reviewer Recommendations

When the assigned reviewers provide substantially different recommendations or conflicting assessments of the manuscript's scholarly quality, the editor will normally invite one additional qualified reviewer to provide an independent evaluation.

The additional assessment is intended to clarify unresolved scholarly concerns and provide further evidence to support the editorial decision.

The editor considers the substance and quality of all review reports rather than relying exclusively on the number of reviewers recommending acceptance or rejection.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized handling editor.

8. Editorial Decisions and Review Outcomes

Following the evaluation of reviewer reports, the handling editor determines the appropriate editorial outcome.

IJECE applies the following principal decision categories:

8.1. Reject

The manuscript is rejected when it does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, analytical, ethical, or editorial requirements, or when its deficiencies cannot be adequately resolved through revision.

A rejection concludes the evaluation of the current submission. Authors are not entitled to resubmit a revised version as a continuation of the rejected manuscript.

8.2. Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires substantial revision before it can be reconsidered for publication.

Authors may be invited to revise the manuscript in response to the reviewers' and editor's comments. The revised version is then subject to an additional review round, which may involve the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers.

An invitation to resubmit for review does not constitute acceptance or guarantee eventual publication.

8.3. Revisions Required

The manuscript requires revisions before a final acceptance decision can be issued.

These revisions may involve improvements to the clarity of writing, presentation of findings, scholarly arguments, references, methodological explanations, or other issues identified during evaluation.

The editor examines the revised manuscript to determine whether the required changes have been satisfactorily addressed. Additional reviewer assessment may be requested when necessary.

A decision requiring revisions does not constitute unconditional acceptance.

8.4. Accept

The manuscript is accepted when the editor determines that it satisfies the journal's scholarly quality, originality, relevance, and publication ethics requirements.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the appropriate editorial production stages, which may include copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, and final publication checks.

Acceptance does not necessarily guarantee publication in a particular issue, as scheduling follows the journal's established publication arrangements.

9. Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts are expected to address the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully and provide a revised manuscript within the deadline communicated by the editorial office.

Authors should submit a clear, point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

When a recommendation is not incorporated, authors should provide an academically justified explanation.

The editorial team may return the manuscript to its original reviewers, invite additional reviewers, or evaluate the revisions editorially, depending on the nature and extent of the required changes.

Further revisions may be requested when important concerns remain unresolved.

10. Editorial Independence, Confidentiality, and Research Integrity

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological or analytical rigor, and ethical acceptability of submitted manuscripts.

Decisions must not be influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, personal relationships, political beliefs, or other irrelevant considerations.

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and withdraw from the evaluation of manuscripts when their impartiality could reasonably be compromised.

When a manuscript is authored by an editor or another individual associated with the journal, its evaluation must be assigned to an editor without a relevant conflict of interest. The author-editor must not participate in the handling or decision-making process for that manuscript.

Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer identities, review reports, and confidential editorial correspondence are handled in accordance with the journal's confidentiality and publication ethics requirements.

Concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified research, compromised peer review, or other suspected misconduct are addressed under the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

11. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe an editorial decision involved a substantive misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, undisclosed conflict of interest, or other significant concern.

Appeals must identify the manuscript concerned and provide clear supporting explanations or evidence.

The editorial office assesses such requests in accordance with the journal's complaints and appeals procedures.

An appeal does not automatically result in reconsideration, additional peer review, or reversal of an editorial decision.

12. Editorial Correspondence

All formal communications concerning submitted manuscripts, editorial decisions, review reports, and revisions should be conducted through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform or authorized editorial correspondence channels.

The corresponding author is primarily responsible for communicating with the editorial office and ensuring that relevant information and editorial decisions are shared with all co-authors.

For inquiries concerning manuscript evaluation, authors may contact the IJECE editorial office:

Email: [email protected]

Authors are encouraged to include their manuscript identification number and title when making editorial inquiries.

13. Peer Review Standards and Guidance

The IJECE peer review policy is informed by internationally recognized principles of ethical and transparent scholarly publishing, particularly guidance developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

IJECE is committed to maintaining a responsible peer review system that supports the integrity of editorial decisions, constructive scholarly evaluation, and continuous improvement of published research.