Peer Review Process

The Indonesian Journal of Research and Educational Review (IJRER) adheres to rigorous peer-review standards to ensure the publication of high-quality, impactful, and ethically sound educational research. IJRER employs a Double-Blind Peer Review model, where both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept strictly anonymous throughout the evaluation process.

  1. Peer Review Model and Standards
  • Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review.
  • Reviewer Count: Minimum of two (2) independent international expert reviewers per manuscript.
  • Ethical Framework: Aligned with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
  • Integrity Screening: Every submission undergoes initial similarity checking via Turnitin (Max. 15% overall similarity threshold) and structural compliance screening prior to reviewer assignment.
  1. Step-by-Step Peer Review Workflow

Phase 1: Desk Review & Initial Screening (7 Days): Upon submission, the Managing Editor conducts a preliminary screening to evaluate:

  1. Scope Fit: Alignment with IJRER's aim and focus in educational research.
  2. Plagiarism & Similarity: Plagiarism check via Turnitin (< 20% total, < 3%  per single source).
  3. Format Compliance: Adherence to APA 7th edition, word count, and anonymized manuscript preparation.
  4. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic standards will be subject to a desk reject or returned to the author for formatting improvements.

Phase 2: Double-Blind Peer Review (4–6 Weeks): If the manuscript passes desk review, the Section Editor assigns a minimum of two peer reviewers with demonstrated publication records in the specific domain. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on five core criteria:

  • Novelty and Originality: Contribution to global educational knowledge.
  • Theoretical Framework: Soundness of theoretical or conceptual grounding.
  • Methodological Rigor: Robustness of sample size, instrumentation, validity/reliability, and data analysis.
  • Discussion and Synthesis: Depth of discussion comparing findings against recent literature (last 5 years).
  • Clarity and Precision: Academic English fluency and structural coherence.

Phase 3: Editorial Decision Categories: Based on reviewer evaluations and detailed report forms, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of four final editorial decisions:

  1. Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted as is without further revisions.
  2. Revisions Required (Minor Revision): The manuscript requires minor textual, formatting, or conceptual tweaks (14 days window). Handled internally by the Section Editor.
  3. Resubmit for Review (Major Revision): The manuscript requires significant methodological, structural, or statistical enhancements (Max 30 days window). Subjected to a second round of double-blind review.
  4. Decline Submission (Reject): The manuscript suffers from fatal conceptual flaws, inadequate methodology, or insufficient contribution to the field.

Phase 4: Author Revisions & Re-evaluation: Authors submitting revised manuscripts must provide a point-by-point Response to Reviewers Matrix detailing how each comment was addressed, highlighting all changes in the manuscript.

Phase 5: Production & Online First Publication: Once accepted, the manuscript moves to copyediting, layout typesetting, and author proofreading. Final articles are assigned a permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and published online under the "Articles in Press/Online First" model prior to formal volume/issue assignment.

  1. Reviewer Selection & Ethical Guidelines
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline invitations if any financial, personal, or institutional conflict of interest exists with the authors or their institutions.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review are treated as strictly confidential documents and must not be shared or used for personal research.
  • Reciprocity and Speed: Reviewers are expected to deliver constructive, unbiased, and polite reviews within 21–28 days of agreeing to review.