Review Process Policy

JRPD (Jurnal Review Pendidikan Dasar: Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan dan Hasil Penelitian) is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific integrity, quality, and transparency through a rigorous peer-review workflow.

  1. Peer Review System:

Double-Blind Peer ReviewAll submitted manuscripts undergo a strict Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure objective and unbiased evaluation:

  • Anonymity: Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities or institutional affiliations.
  • Author Responsibility: Prior to submission, authors must ensure that their manuscript file contains no self-identifying details (such as names, affiliations, explicit acknowledgements, or metadata in MS Word properties).
  1. Workflow & Stages of Review

Every submitted manuscript follows a structured, sequential editorial review process:

Stage 1: Initial Desk Screening (Managing Editor)

Upon submission, the Managing Editor conducts a preliminary evaluation to verify:

  • Scope Alignment: Relevance to elementary education, pedagogy, or primary learning practices.
  • Formatting & Template Adherence: Compliance with the official JRPD manuscript template and layout rules.
  • Plagiarism & Similarity Check: Automated screening using Turnitin (maximum allowable similarity index is 20%).

Outcome: Manuscripts that fail to meet basic requirements, fall outside the journal scope, or exceed the similarity threshold will be desk-rejected or sent back for reformatting prior to review.

Stage 2: Double-Blind Peer Review (Mitra Bestari / Reviewers)

Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to at least two (2) independent peer reviewers who are experts in primary education. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and novelty of the research gap.
  • Methodological rigor and appropriateness of data analysis.
  • Scientific clarity of results and depth of discussion.
  • Quality and recency of literature citations (APA 7th Edition style, minimum 30 references).
  • Ethical compliance and educational implications.

Stage 3: Author Revision & Response

  • Authors receive anonymized reviewer reports alongside editorial decision notifications.
  • Authors are given a designated timeframe (typically 2 to 4 weeks) to revise their manuscript.
  • Revised submissions must be accompanied by a point-by-point Response to Reviewers document explaining how each reviewer comment was addressed.

Stage 4: Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance rests with the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' recommendations and the thoroughness of the authors' revisions.

  1. Editorial Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief renders one of the following official decisions:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted as-is without further scientific modifications.
  • Revisions Required (Minor Revision): The manuscript is accepted conditionally, requiring minor textual, analytical, or formatting adjustments.
  • Resubmit for Review (Major Revision): The manuscript requires substantial structural, methodological, or theoretical revisions and will undergo a second round of peer review.
  • Decline Submission (Reject): The manuscript is rejected due to major methodological flaws, lack of novelty, out-of-scope content, or unaddressed reviewer feedback.
  1. Review Timeline & Duration

To ensure timely publication while maintaining review quality, JRPD adheres to the following average processing times:

  • Initial Desk Screening: 1 – 3 days
  • Peer Review Process: 2 – 4 weeks
  • Author Revision Period: 2 – 3 weeks
  • Copyediting & Publication: 1 – 2 weeks