Review Guidelines
Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pedagogi Indonesia (JPPI) conducted a double-blind peer review. Peer reviewers have similar competencies to paper authors. So that every submitted paper is subject to peer review. JPII ensures that all published manuscripts are of high quality and credibility. The peer-review process can be seen from the following 10 (ten) descriptions:
- Submission of papers. Each correspondence author can only submit papers through the Open Journal System (OJS). Authors can ask questions via email as a follow-up step (id.islamictoday@gmail.com).
- Editorial assessment. JPII editor will assess each submitted manuscript. The three components that are of initial concern to the Editor are the suitability of the focus and scope of the JPII, the composition and arrangement of papers against the guidelines for writing, the minimum quality of papers, including methodological weaknesses and the suitability of objectives with the discussion, and checking for plagiarism through Turnitin.
- Assessment by the Chief Editor. The editor-in-chief may reject a paper if it is judged inappropriate for the journal, not original, not attractive, and does not impact readers.
- Invitation to Reviewers. The managing editor sends invitations to individuals he believes will be appropriate reviewers (also known as referees) based on expertise, the affinity of research interests, and no conflict-of-interest considerations. JPII engages a community of experts in the narrowly defined fields of the contemporary Islam who are qualified and able to conduct a sufficiently impartial review. Impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review used in this journal. The reviewer does not know the author's identity; otherwise, the writer does not know the reviewer's identity. The author's identity is deleted before the paper is sent to the reviewers.
- Reviewers' responses to invitations. Potential reviewers weigh invitations against their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They can accept or reject. In the invitation letter, the Editor may ask potential reviewers for alternative reviewer suggestions when there is a rejection of the paper.
- Review is conducted. The reviewer allocates time to read the paper several times. The first reading is used to form an initial impression of the work. If significant problems are discovered at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. If not, they'll review the article several times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal with a recommendation to accept or reject it or with a revision request (usually marked as major or minor) before reconsideration.
- Editor-in-Chief and Editors evaluate reviews. The Editor-in-Chief and Editor consider all returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the studies differ significantly between the two reviewers, the Editor in charge may invite additional reviewers to obtain other opinions before deciding.
- Decision for the author. The Editor emails the decision to the author, including the relevant reviewer's comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the author for necessary action and response. At this point, the reviewer will also be sent an email or letter letting them know the result of their review.
- Copy-editing. If accepted, the paper is sent to copy-editing. Suppose the article is rejected or returned to the author for major or minor revisions. In this case, the handling editor will include constructive reviewer comments to help the authors improve the article. The author must make corrections and revise the paper according to the comments and instructions of the reviewers.
- Revision of papers. After revisions, the author must return the revised form to the Editor. If a paper is sent back for revision, reviewers should expect to receive the revised version unless they choose not to participate further. However, if only minor changes are requested, the handling editor may perform this follow-up review.
