Peer Review Process
Initial evaluation of manuscripts
The Editor will first evaluate all manuscripts submitted at a maximum of 3 weeks time. Although rare, yet it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the Indonesian Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts reviewers for review. It usually took up to 10 weeks.
Type of peer review
Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two to three experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates the already published works, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. The method is blind peer review.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
- Is original by stating the objectives and gap clearly
- Is methodologically research
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
- Has results/findings which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- Correctly references previous relevant work
- Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. Editor’s decision is final.
The response of the reviewers will be the basis for the Editor to conclude
- Revisions Required
- Accept Submission
- Decline Submission
- Resubmit Elsewhere
An article was rejected for publication due to various considerations, including:
- The article does not fit the scope
- The article does not follow the rules of writing scientific papers / do not follow the author's guidelines
- The fundamental methodological errors
- The author refuses to make suggestions for improvements provided by the reviewer without a logical basis.
- There are indications of plagiarism of more than 25%