Peer Review Process

EDUKASI IPS applies a single-blind peer review process. Each submitted manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, followed by editorial evaluation. Final decisions on acceptance or rejection are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor, based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope. Editorial board members are listed on the journal's Editorial Board page. A summary of the editorial workflow is outlined below:

 

A. Manuscript Pre-check
After submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening to assess the following:

  • The suitability of the manuscript to the journal’s aims, scope, and formatting guidelines.
  • The qualifications and affiliations of the authors.
  • Rejection of manuscripts with evident academic, ethical, or structural deficiencies.

 

B. Peer Review
EDUKASI uses a single-blind review model: reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. All communication with reviewers and authors is managed by the journal editorial team to ensure objectivity and efficiency.

  • Key points of the review process:
  • Reviewers are given two weeks to evaluate the initial submission.
  • For revised submissions, reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within one week.
  • Extensions may be granted upon request.
  • Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, and relevance.
  • Editors monitor the progress and may intervene to maintain the review timeline.

 

C. Editorial Decision
Following the peer review, the editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept the manuscript.
  • Request revisions from the author.
  • Reject the manuscript.
  • Invite additional reviews, if needed.

 

In cases where plagiarism or ethical issues are suspected, manuscripts are subjected to plagiarism screening using Turnitin or similar software. Editorial decisions are final and are communicated to authors along with relevant reviewer feedback.