Peer Review Process

Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran Guru Sekolah Dasar (JPPGuseda) maintains the highest standards of academic integrity through a rigorous and systematic peer-review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo a thorough evaluation to ensure they meet the journal's strict criteria for originality, methodological rigor, and substantive contribution to the field of elementary and primary education.

1. Review System: Double-Blind Peer Review

JPPGuseda strictly employs a Double-Blind Peer Review system. Under this model:

• The identities of the authors are completely concealed from the reviewers.

• The identities of the reviewers are completely concealed from the authors.

This system guarantees that the evaluation process remains highly objective, unbiased, and free from any personal, academic, or institutional prejudice.

2. Initial Desk Review

Upon submission, every manuscript is subject to a preliminary screening by the Editorial Team before being dispatched for peer review. This desk review checks for:

• Scope Fit: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s aims and scope in elementary/primary education?

• Plagiarism & Originality: A thorough similarity check is performed using Turnitin. The journal mandates a maximum similarity index of 20% (excluding references).

• Basic Quality & Formatting: Does the manuscript meet the minimum requirements for academic language, structural formatting, and APA 7th referencing?

Outcome: Manuscripts that fail to meet these foundational criteria will be immediately rejected (Desk Rejection) or returned to the authors for technical corrections prior to formal review.

3. The Review Process

• Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that successfully pass the desk review are assigned to at least two (2) independent external reviewers who possess recognized expertise in the specific subject matter.

• Reviewer Evaluation: Reviewers critically assess the manuscript based on the following dimensions:

  • Novelty, originality, and theoretical contribution to primary education.

  • Rigorousness and appropriateness of the research methodology.

  • Clarity of data analysis and the practical/pedagogical implications of the findings.

  • Coherence of arguments and standard of academic writing.

• Timeframe: Reviewers are typically allotted 4 to 6 weeks to complete their comprehensive evaluation and submit their reports.

• Reviewer Restrictions: Peer reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts (or any parts thereof) into GenAI tools. Doing so violates the author's proprietary rights and the fundamental principle of peer review confidentiality. Reviewers must apply their own professional human judgment and expertise to evaluate the scholarly merit of the submission.

4. Review Outcomes

Based on the synthesis of the reviewers' recommendations, the Handling Editor will propose, and the Editor-in-Chief will finalize, one of the following decisions:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form without further changes.

• Revisions Required (Minor/Major): The authors must address specific editorial and reviewer comments. A detailed response letter is required upon resubmission. Major revisions may undergo a second round of peer review.

• Decline Submission: The manuscript exhibits fundamental methodological flaws, lacks significant educational implications, or does not meet the journal's standards of quality.

5. Final Decision Authority

The Editor-in-Chief holds the ultimate authority over all editorial and publication decisions. This decision is final. Appeals are only considered if the author provides compelling evidence of a significant procedural error or factual misunderstanding during the review process (as detailed in the Appeals Policy).

6. Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethics

In alignment with COPE guidelines, JPPGuseda strictly enforces the following ethical standards for its reviewers:

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all assigned manuscripts as highly confidential documents. They are strictly prohibited from sharing, discussing, or appropriating the data or ideas prior to publication.

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must immediately declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors or their institutions) and recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript.

• Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments to help authors improve their scholarship.