Peer Review Process

JURNAL PGSD UNIGA

Peer Review Process

Ensuring Scholarly Quality, Objectivity, and Integrity through a Rigorous Review Process.

Editorial Assessment Expert Evaluation Publication Decision

Jurnal PGSD UNIGA (E-ISSN 2828-2299) is committed to maintaining the quality, credibility, and academic integrity of published articles through a systematic editorial assessment and peer-review process.

The peer-review process evaluates the originality, relevance, methodological rigor, validity of findings, and scholarly contribution of each manuscript. Independent expert assessment supports editorial decisions and helps authors improve the quality of their work.

01. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process serves the following purposes:

To evaluate the originality and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts.
To assess the relevance of manuscripts to the Focus and Scope of Jurnal PGSD UNIGA.
To examine the appropriateness and rigor of research design and methodology.
To assess the validity of data analysis, interpretation, and conclusions.
To provide constructive recommendations for improving manuscript quality.
To support fair, transparent, and evidence-based editorial decisions.
To maintain the integrity and credibility of scholarly publications in elementary education.

02. Peer Review Model

Jurnal PGSD UNIGA conducts peer review through the evaluation of manuscripts by qualified reviewers with relevant academic expertise and research experience.

Reviewer and author identities are handled in accordance with the journal's officially declared peer-review model and applicable confidentiality procedures. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, and constructive assessments without inappropriate personal or institutional influence.

Independence of Review

Reviewers provide scholarly recommendations, while the authorized editor remains responsible for the final editorial decision. A favorable reviewer recommendation does not automatically guarantee acceptance.

03. Peer Review Process and Stages

Every submitted manuscript follows a structured editorial workflow. The main stages are described below.

STAGE 01

Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the official Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform of Jurnal PGSD UNIGA.

The submission should include the manuscript file, complete author information, abstract, keywords, and other required metadata and supporting documents.

STAGE 02

Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic submission requirements.

The screening includes:

Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.
Compliance with the Author Guidelines and manuscript template.
Completeness of submission information and required documents.
Initial assessment of originality and potential similarity concerns.
Basic assessment of academic relevance and manuscript quality.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to authors for correction or declined before external peer review.

STAGE 03

Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening may be assigned to qualified reviewers whose academic backgrounds and research expertise are relevant to the subject matter.

Reviewer selection considers:

Relevant academic qualifications and research expertise.
Experience in the manuscript's subject area or research methodology.
Independence and absence of relevant competing interests.
Ability to provide an objective and constructive evaluation.

STAGE 04

External Peer Review

Assigned reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and provide comments and recommendations to the editor.

The evaluation focuses on the manuscript's originality, research design, methodological rigor, quality of analysis, validity of conclusions, contribution to the field, and clarity of academic presentation.

STAGE 05

Editorial Evaluation and Decision

The editor considers the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's scholarly quality, and the journal's publication requirements before making an editorial decision.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification, additional review, or further assessment before reaching a decision.

STAGE 06

Revision by Authors

When revisions are required, authors must revise the manuscript in response to editorial and reviewer comments.

Authors are expected to:

Address reviewer comments systematically.
Provide a point-by-point response to each comment.
Clearly indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript.
Provide academic explanations when a recommendation is not adopted.
Submit the revised manuscript and response document through OJS.

STAGE 07

Re-evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated again by the editor and, when necessary, returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other qualified reviewers. The purpose is to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive comments and whether the manuscript meets the journal's scholarly standards.

STAGE 08

Final Decision and Publication

After the evaluation and revision process is completed, the editor makes the final decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, proofreading, and publication according to the journal's editorial schedule and production procedures.

04. Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts using the following scholarly criteria:

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

1. Originality and Novelty

The manuscript demonstrates originality and a meaningful contribution to knowledge or practice.

2. Relevance and Scope

The topic is relevant to elementary education and the journal's Focus and Scope.

3. Research Background and Literature

The research problem, theoretical foundation, literature review, and research gap are clearly established.

4. Research Methodology

The research design, participants, instruments, procedures, and analysis methods are appropriate and adequately explained.

5. Results and Discussion

The findings are clearly presented, appropriately analyzed, and critically discussed in relation to relevant literature.

6. Conclusions and Implications

The conclusions are supported by the findings and provide meaningful academic or practical implications.

7. References and Academic Writing

References are relevant and verifiable, citations are accurate, and the manuscript is presented in clear academic language.

8. Research Ethics and Integrity

The research complies with applicable ethical requirements and demonstrates responsible scholarly practices.

05. Editorial Decisions

Following the editorial assessment and peer-review process, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and editorial requirements and can proceed to the publication production process.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited revisions, such as clarification, additional explanation, language improvement, or minor corrections, before a final decision.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial improvement in research methodology, analysis, interpretation, theoretical discussion, or other important scholarly aspects. A further review may be required.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, is outside the journal's scope, or has substantial methodological, ethical, or academic weaknesses that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's OJS system or official editorial correspondence.

06. Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and familiarity with the subject or methodology of the submitted manuscript.

In selecting reviewers, the editorial team considers:

Academic qualifications and relevant scholarly expertise.
Research and publication experience in the relevant field.
Independence from the authors and their institutions.
Absence of actual or potential conflicts of interest.
Ability to provide timely, constructive, and objective assessments.

Reviewers are expected to maintain professional conduct, provide evidence-based recommendations, and respect the confidentiality of the review process.

07. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

All parties involved in peer review must maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the editorial process.

Authors

Authors must not attempt to influence reviewers improperly or communicate directly with reviewers about confidential assessments. Authors must provide accurate responses to editorial comments and disclose relevant ethical issues.

Reviewers

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript contents, reviewer reports, or confidential editorial information to unauthorized parties. They must not use unpublished information for personal, professional, or research advantage.

Editors

Editors must protect manuscript confidentiality, manage reviewer assignments fairly, address competing interests, and ensure that editorial decisions are based on scholarly evidence.

08. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

Recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors.
Personal, professional, or institutional relationships.
Financial or commercial interests related to the manuscript.
Direct academic competition or other relationships that could affect objectivity.

When a relevant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment or inform the editor so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Editors must reassign manuscripts when their own impartiality may be compromised.

09. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Confidentiality Must Be Protected

Unpublished manuscripts and confidential reviewer materials must not be entered into external AI systems in ways that expose or compromise their confidentiality.

Jurnal PGSD UNIGA recognizes the development of artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies in academic publishing. Their use in peer review must be responsible and subject to human oversight.

Reviewers must remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of their evaluations.
Reviewers must not delegate the entire assessment or editorial recommendation to AI tools.
Confidential manuscript content must be protected from unauthorized disclosure through AI platforms.
Editors must not rely exclusively on automated tools to make editorial decisions.
Any permitted use of AI assistance must be consistent with the journal's Publication Ethics policy and confidentiality requirements.

10. Review Duration and Editorial Timeline

The duration of the review process may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds, and the time required by authors to respond to editorial comments.

The journal aims to manage submissions efficiently and communicate editorial progress through the OJS system. Authors are encouraged to monitor their submission accounts regularly and respond to editorial requests within the specified deadlines.

Important Notice

The journal does not guarantee a fixed review or acceptance period. The time required for each manuscript depends on the editorial and peer-review process.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or inappropriate assessment has affected the decision.

An appeal must be submitted in writing to the editorial office and should include:

The manuscript title and submission identification, if available.
The editorial decision being appealed.
A clear explanation of the grounds for appeal.
Supporting evidence or scholarly arguments where relevant.

The journal will assess appeals fairly and independently. When appropriate, an independent editor or qualified expert may be consulted. The decision following the appeal will be communicated to the corresponding author.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial handling, or research-integrity issues may also be submitted through the journal's official contact channel.

12. Post-Review and Publication Process

Manuscripts accepted after peer review proceed to the journal's production process, which may include:

Copyediting and language correction.
Formatting and layout preparation.
Author proofreading and confirmation of the final version.
Verification of article metadata and references.
Online publication according to the journal's publication schedule.

Acceptance is subject to completion of the required editorial and production procedures. Authors remain responsible for reviewing the final article proof and reporting any remaining errors before publication.

13. Summary of the Peer Review Workflow

The following diagram summarizes the main stages of manuscript evaluation:

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION

↓

INITIAL EDITORIAL SCREENING

↓

REVIEWER SELECTION AND ASSIGNMENT

↓

EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

↓

EDITORIAL EVALUATION

↓

EDITORIAL DECISION

Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject

↓

AUTHOR REVISION (IF REQUIRED)

↓

RE-EVALUATION (IF REQUIRED)

↓

FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLICATION

14. Guidelines and Ethical References

The peer-review process of Jurnal PGSD UNIGA is guided by recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including the following resources:

COPE Core Practices

International guidance on peer review, editorial processes, conflicts of interest, and publication ethics.

Read COPE Core Practices ↗

Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Guidance on transparency, editorial governance, peer review, and publishing responsibilities.

Read the Principles ↗

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Guidance on reviewer responsibilities, confidentiality, objectivity, and professional conduct.

Read Reviewer Guidelines ↗