Peer Review Process

Manuscript Review Process

The manuscript review process at Jurnal Pendidikan: Media, Strategi, dan Metode (JPMSM) is designed to ensure that every published article meets appropriate standards of originality, scientific quality, methodological validity, ethical integrity, relevance, and academic contribution. Each manuscript is evaluated according to its scholarly merit and suitability for the journal’s focus and scope, particularly in the areas of educational media, learning strategies, teaching methods, educational technology, project-based learning, active learning, collaborative learning, and related educational innovations.

JPMSM applies a double-blind peer-review process, meaning that the reviewers do not know the identities of the authors and the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. The journal appoints a minimum of two independent reviewers for each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening. All communication between authors and reviewers is conducted through the Editor or the journal’s online submission system.

1. Manuscript Submission

Submission Procedure

Authors submit their manuscripts through the JPMSM online submission system in accordance with the journal’s submission requirements. The submitted manuscript must comply with the official journal template, author guidelines, formatting requirements, reference style, research ethics requirements, and publication ethics policies.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all listed authors have approved the manuscript, agreed to its submission, and accepted responsibility for the integrity of the work.

Submission Metadata

Authors must enter complete and accurate information in the submission metadata, including:

full names of all authors;
institutional affiliations;
email addresses;
ORCID identifiers, when available;
manuscript title and abstract;
keywords;
funding information, when applicable; and
declarations concerning conflicts of interest and research ethics.

Author information is retained by the editorial office for administrative and ethical purposes but is not disclosed to reviewers during the peer-review process.

Anonymous Manuscript File

The manuscript file submitted for review must be anonymized. Authors must remove all information that may directly or indirectly reveal their identities, including:

authors’ names;
institutional affiliations;
email addresses;
ORCID identifiers;
personal acknowledgements;
institutional identifiers;
author biographies;
signatures;
identifying statements in headers or footers; and
author information contained in the document properties or file metadata.

References to the authors’ previous publications must be written objectively and in the third person. Authors must not use expressions such as “in our previous study” when such wording may reveal their identity. However, academically necessary references must not be removed merely to conceal authorship.

Initial Administrative Check

After submission, the editorial office checks whether the manuscript:

has been submitted correctly;
follows the official JPMSM template;
contains all required sections;
includes complete submission metadata;
complies with the journal’s focus and scope;
meets the journal’s reference and citation requirements;
satisfies publication ethics requirements;
has been properly anonymized; and
is ready for editorial assessment.

Manuscripts with incomplete information or identifiable author details may be returned to the authors for correction before the editorial screening begins.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Editorial Evaluation

Every manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editor before being forwarded to external reviewers. The Editor assesses:

relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
originality of the topic and contribution;
clarity of the research problem and objectives;
completeness of the manuscript;
suitability of the research design;
adequacy of the data and analysis;
academic quality of the writing;
compliance with the journal template;
accuracy and relevance of references;
ethical compliance; and
readiness for peer review.

The Editor may also conduct a similarity check using appropriate plagiarism-detection software. The maximum similarity threshold applied by JPMSM is 20%. A similarity score below 20% does not automatically guarantee that a manuscript is free from plagiarism. The Editor may reject a manuscript when copied material, inappropriate paraphrasing, duplicate publication, unattributed sources, or other forms of academic misconduct are identified, regardless of the numerical similarity score.

Initial Editorial Decision

Following the initial screening, the Editor may:

forward the manuscript to peer review;
request preliminary corrections before peer review;
return the manuscript because of incomplete submission requirements;
recommend submission to another journal; or
decline the submission without external review.

A manuscript may be declined during the initial screening when it:

falls outside the journal’s focus and scope;
lacks a clear scientific contribution;
contains fundamental methodological weaknesses;
does not present sufficient or credible data;
fails to follow the journal template substantially;
contains incomplete manuscript sections;
exceeds the permitted similarity threshold;
contains plagiarism or duplicate publication;
presents fabricated, falsified, or manipulated information;
uses unverifiable or inaccurate references;
violates research or publication ethics; or
is not sufficiently developed for academic peer review.

A desk rejection does not necessarily indicate that the research topic has no academic value. It indicates that the submitted manuscript, in its current form, does not meet the minimum requirements for external review in JPMSM.

3. Appointment of Reviewers

Minimum Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers.

The Editor may appoint an additional reviewer when:

the initial reviewers provide substantially different recommendations;
specialized methodological expertise is required;
a potential conflict of interest is identified;
one reviewer fails to complete the review;
concerns arise regarding the reliability of a review report; or
further expert evaluation is needed before an editorial decision can be made.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

expertise relevant to the manuscript topic;
academic qualifications;
research and publication experience;
methodological competence;
independence from the authors;
absence of conflicts of interest; and
ability to provide an objective, detailed, and constructive assessment.

Reviewers should not normally be affiliated with the same institution as the authors. The Editor must avoid appointing reviewers whose personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic relationships may compromise the objectivity of the review.

Conflict of Interest Declaration

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers are required to confirm that they have no conflict of interest involving:

the manuscript;
the presumed authors;
the authors’ institution;
the research setting;
the funding source;
the research topic; or
any professional or personal relationship that may affect their impartiality.

A reviewer who identifies an actual or potential conflict of interest must decline the assignment or immediately inform the Editor.

Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document. They must not:

distribute or reproduce the manuscript;
share the manuscript with unauthorized persons;
discuss its contents outside the review process;
contact the authors directly;
use unpublished data or ideas for personal benefit;
upload the manuscript to unauthorized artificial intelligence systems; or
disclose information obtained through the review process.

When a reviewer requires assistance from another expert, prior permission must be obtained from the Editor. Any person involved in assisting with the review must also comply with the journal’s confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

4. Double-Blind Peer-Review Procedure

JPMSM applies a double-blind peer-review system, also referred to as an anonymous-author and anonymous-reviewer procedure.

Under this system:

the reviewers do not know the identities of the authors;
the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers;
author identities are removed from the manuscript sent to reviewers;
reviewer identities are removed from all reports sent to authors; and
communication between authors and reviewers is mediated by the Editor.

Anonymity of Authors

The version of the manuscript provided to reviewers does not display:

authors’ names;
institutional affiliations;
email addresses;
ORCID identifiers;
personal acknowledgements;
author biographies;
signatures; or
other directly identifying information.

Although the editorial team has access to author information for submission administration, ethical monitoring, and correspondence, this information is not disclosed to reviewers.

Anonymity of Reviewers

Reviewer names, affiliations, email addresses, professional profiles, and other identifying information are not disclosed to the authors. Reviewer identities are not included in:

reviewer comments forwarded to authors;
editorial decision letters;
author revision files;
published articles; or
public information concerning individual manuscript evaluations.

Reviewer identities remain confidential before, during, and after publication, except when disclosure is required by law or necessary for a formal investigation of serious publication misconduct.

Communication between Authors and Reviewers

Authors and reviewers are not permitted to contact each other directly regarding a manuscript under evaluation. All questions, comments, clarification requests, revision instructions, and responses must be communicated through the Editor or the OJS platform.

Accidental Disclosure of Identity

When a reviewer accidentally discovers or suspects the identity of an author, the reviewer must:

refrain from investigating or confirming the author’s identity;
avoid contacting the author;
inform the Editor immediately; and
allow the Editor to determine whether the review may continue.

The Editor may replace the reviewer when the accidental disclosure could compromise the fairness or independence of the evaluation.

Anonymity during Revision

The double-blind procedure remains in effect during all revision and re-review stages. Revised manuscripts and responses to reviewers must not include:

author names;
institutional affiliations;
personal signatures;
identifying acknowledgements;
personal email addresses; or
other information that may reveal authorship.

The editorial office may remove identifying information or return the files to authors for correction before they are sent to reviewers.

5. Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript objectively and independently. The assessment normally covers the following aspects:

relevance to the focus and scope of JPMSM;
originality of the study;
significance of the research problem;
clarity of the research objectives;
adequacy of the theoretical foundation;
relevance and currency of previous research;
clarity of the research gap;
appropriateness of the research design;
adequacy of participants, samples, or data sources;
quality of the research instruments;
validity, reliability, credibility, or trustworthiness of the study;
appropriateness of data collection procedures;
accuracy of the data analysis;
clarity of the results;
consistency between results and conclusions;
depth and critical quality of the discussion;
contribution to educational theory, policy, or practice;
accuracy and relevance of references;
compliance with research and publication ethics; and
overall organization and academic presentation.

Descriptive Review Report

Reviewers are required to provide a descriptive review report containing a clear academic assessment of the manuscript. The report should identify:

the strengths of the manuscript;
the weaknesses of the manuscript;
specific revisions required;
methodological or conceptual concerns;
ethical concerns, when applicable;
the manuscript’s potential contribution; and
the recommended editorial procedure.

Review comments must be:

objective;
constructive;
specific;
academically justified;
respectful;
free from personal criticism; and
free from discriminatory language.

Reviewers should not recommend citation of their own publications unless the suggested references are directly relevant and genuinely necessary for improving the manuscript.

6. Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the assessment, each reviewer submits one of the following recommendations through the journal’s OJS review system.

6.1 Accept Submission

This recommendation is selected when the manuscript is considered suitable for publication in its current form or requires only minor technical corrections that do not affect its academic substance.

Minor corrections may include:

typographical corrections;
limited language editing;
minor formatting adjustments;
metadata corrections; or
small reference-formatting improvements.

An Accept Submission recommendation from a reviewer does not automatically constitute final acceptance. The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor.

6.2 Revisions Required

This recommendation is selected when the manuscript has potential for publication but requires revisions that can reasonably be completed without fundamentally redesigning the study.

Required revisions may concern:

clarification of the research problem;
improvement of the theoretical explanation;
refinement of the literature review;
clarification of methodological procedures;
improvement of tables or figures;
strengthening of data interpretation;
development of the discussion;
correction of references;
improvement of academic language; or
compliance with journal formatting.

The revised manuscript may be assessed directly by the Editor or returned to one or more reviewers when additional expert evaluation is needed.

A Revisions Required recommendation does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

6.3 Resubmit for Review

This recommendation is selected when the manuscript requires substantial conceptual, methodological, analytical, or interpretative revision and must undergo another full round of peer review.

This recommendation may be appropriate when:

the theoretical framework requires substantial reconstruction;
the research method is insufficiently explained;
the data analysis requires significant correction;
the results and conclusions are inconsistent;
the discussion lacks sufficient depth;
major supporting evidence must be added; or
substantial concerns must be addressed before publication can be considered.

The authors must submit a substantially revised manuscript and a detailed response to all reviewer and editorial comments. The revised submission may be evaluated by the original reviewers or by newly appointed independent reviewers.

A Resubmit for Review recommendation does not guarantee acceptance.

6.4 Resubmit Elsewhere

This recommendation is selected when the manuscript may have academic merit but is not sufficiently aligned with the focus, scope, readership, or editorial priorities of JPMSM.

This recommendation may be given when:

the manuscript topic is outside the journal’s scope;
the manuscript is more appropriate for another academic discipline;
the intended readership differs substantially from the readership of JPMSM; or
the manuscript’s contribution is better suited to another publication venue.

A Resubmit Elsewhere recommendation does not necessarily mean that the manuscript lacks academic quality. It indicates that another journal may provide a more appropriate publication context.

6.5 Decline Submission

This recommendation is selected when the manuscript contains fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

Grounds may include:

serious methodological weaknesses;
insufficient originality;
lack of credible or adequate data;
unsupported conclusions;
major inconsistencies between objectives, results, and conclusions;
serious ethical concerns;
plagiarism;
duplicate publication;
data fabrication or falsification;
manipulated evidence;
unverifiable references;
inappropriate authorship practices; or
failure to meet the journal’s minimum academic standards.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor is not required to follow a recommendation when the reviewer’s reasoning is incomplete, inconsistent, unsupported, inappropriate, or contrary to the journal’s policies.

7. Editorial Decision

The Editor evaluates:

the complete manuscript;
the reports of all reviewers;
the reviewers’ recommendations;
the academic basis of the reviewer comments;
the manuscript’s relevance to the journal;
methodological and ethical considerations;
the authors’ revision history; and
the overall contribution of the study.

The Editor records the decision using one of the following OJS decision categories.

7.1 Accept Submission

The manuscript is accepted because it has satisfactorily met the journal’s substantive, methodological, ethical, and technical requirements.

Minor editorial changes may still be completed during:

copyediting;
reference verification;
metadata checking;
proofreading;
layout preparation; and
production.

A manuscript proceeds to production only after an official Accept Submission decision has been issued by the Editor.

7.2 Revisions Required

The manuscript requires revisions that can reasonably be completed without fundamentally redesigning the research.

The decision letter includes anonymized reviewer comments and editorial instructions. Authors must:

revise the manuscript;
respond to each reviewer comment;
explain the changes made;
indicate the relevant pages or sections; and
provide academic justification for any recommendation not followed.

A Revisions Required decision is not equivalent to acceptance. After evaluating the revised manuscript, the Editor may:

request further revisions;
return the manuscript to reviewers;
issue an Accept Submission decision;
issue a Resubmit for Review decision; or
decline the submission.

7.3 Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires major substantive revision and must undergo another round of peer review.

This decision is normally issued when significant improvements are required in:

the theoretical framework;
research design;
data presentation;
instrument explanation;
analytical procedures;
interpretation of findings;
discussion;
conclusions; or
ethical documentation.

Authors must submit:

a substantially revised anonymous manuscript;
a point-by-point response to reviewer comments; and
any supporting documents requested by the Editor.

The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the original reviewers or by other independent reviewers. Resubmission does not guarantee acceptance.

7.4 Resubmit Elsewhere

The manuscript is not considered sufficiently appropriate for publication in JPMSM because it does not align adequately with the journal’s:

focus and scope;
intended readership;
disciplinary orientation; or
editorial priorities.

This decision does not necessarily indicate that the manuscript lacks academic value. Authors may revise and submit the manuscript to another journal with a more appropriate scope.

A manuscript receiving a Resubmit Elsewhere decision is closed in the JPMSM editorial system and does not proceed to revision or production.

7.5 Decline Submission

The manuscript is rejected because it does not meet the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, or publication standards, and its deficiencies cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

Grounds for declining a submission may include:

fundamental research design weaknesses;
inadequate or unreliable data;
insufficient originality;
unsupported conclusions;
serious ethical violations;
plagiarism;
simultaneous submission;
duplicate publication;
fabrication or falsification;
manipulated data or images;
unverifiable or fabricated references;
inappropriate authorship;
undisclosed conflicts of interest;
failure to address substantial reviewer concerns; or
failure to comply with essential editorial requirements.

A declined manuscript is removed from the active editorial process. A subsequent manuscript based on the same study will be treated as a new submission and may only be considered when it has been substantially reconstructed.

Differences between Reviewer Recommendations

When reviewers provide substantially different assessments or recommendations, the Editor may:

compare the academic basis of the review reports;
request clarification from the reviewers;
appoint an additional independent reviewer;
request preliminary revision from the authors;
seek advice from a member of the Editorial Board; or
make a decision based on the overall academic quality of the manuscript.

The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor.

Communication of the Decision

The editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the journal’s online submission system. The decision letter includes anonymized reviewer comments and relevant editorial instructions.

Before comments are sent to the authors, the editorial office removes:

reviewer names;
affiliations;
email addresses;
signatures;
institutional information; and
other details that may disclose reviewer identity.

8. Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a Revisions Required or Resubmit for Review decision must submit a revised manuscript within the period specified in the editorial decision letter.

Author Response

Authors must provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. The response should include:

the original reviewer comment;
the author’s response;
the revision made;
the page or section where the revision appears; and
an academic justification when a recommendation is not followed.

Responses must remain respectful, evidence-based, and academically reasoned.

Revisions Required

For a Revisions Required decision, the revised manuscript may be assessed directly by the Editor when the requested changes are limited or do not require another complete external evaluation.

The Editor may nevertheless return the manuscript to one or more reviewers when:

the revisions concern specialized academic issues;
the reviewer requested re-evaluation;
the adequacy of the revision is uncertain; or
additional methodological verification is necessary.

Resubmit for Review

For a Resubmit for Review decision, the revised manuscript must undergo another peer-review round.

The Editor may send the manuscript to:

the original reviewers;
additional reviewers;
replacement reviewers; or
reviewers with specialized methodological expertise.

The same double-blind procedure applies during the re-review stage.

Maintaining Anonymity

The revised manuscript and response document sent to reviewers must remain anonymous. Authors must remove:

names;
affiliations;
signatures;
personal acknowledgements;
personal email addresses;
institutional identifiers; and
document metadata that may reveal identity.

The editorial office may return files that do not comply with the anonymity requirements.

Failure to Complete Revision

The Editor may decline or close a submission when authors:

do not submit revisions within the specified period;
fail to respond to reviewer comments;
provide incomplete or inadequate revisions;
refuse to address substantial methodological or ethical concerns;
repeatedly submit non-anonymous files; or
do not communicate with the editorial office.

An extension may be granted when authors submit a reasonable request before the revision deadline.

9. Acceptance and Production

A manuscript proceeds to production only after the Editor issues an Accept Submission decision.

Final Verification

Before production, the editorial office verifies:

completion of all required revisions;
accuracy of author information;
correctness of affiliations;
completeness of metadata;
validity of references;
consistency of tables and figures;
research ethics documentation;
conflict-of-interest declarations;
funding information;
originality and similarity compliance; and
conformity with the journal template.

Restoration of Author Identity

Author names, affiliations, email addresses, and other publication information are restored to the final manuscript only after the anonymous peer-review process has been completed and the manuscript has been accepted.

Production Process

Accepted manuscripts proceed through:

copyediting;
language and style checking;
reference verification;
metadata verification;
layout preparation;
proofreading;
author approval; and
publication scheduling.

Authors are responsible for reviewing the proof and reporting only necessary corrections. Substantial changes to the research content are not normally permitted during proofreading.

Reconsideration before Publication

An acceptance decision may be reconsidered before publication when serious concerns are subsequently identified, including:

plagiarism;
duplicate publication;
authorship disputes;
fabricated or falsified data;
manipulated images;
unreliable references;
ethical violations;
undisclosed conflicts of interest; or
material errors affecting the validity of the article.

The journal may suspend production while an investigation is conducted.

10. Publication

After completing the production process, the article is published in an appropriate issue of Jurnal Pendidikan: Media, Strategi, dan Metode.

Published articles are made available through the journal’s electronic platform so that they can be accessed by researchers, educators, practitioners, students, policymakers, and other interested readers.

Publication scheduling is determined by:

completion of the editorial process;
completion of production requirements;
issue capacity;
thematic relevance;
publication order; and
the journal’s editorial schedule.

Payment of an article processing charge does not determine publication priority and does not guarantee acceptance.

11. Post-Publication Process

Post-Publication Monitoring

After publication, the editorial team may monitor:

reported errors;
concerns raised by readers;
citation and academic use;
authorship concerns;
research ethics concerns;
duplicate publication;
data integrity issues; and
other matters affecting the reliability of the scholarly record.

Corrections and Updates

When an error is identified after publication, the journal may take appropriate action depending on its nature and severity.

Possible actions include:

minor metadata correction;
corrigendum;
erratum;
clarification;
expression of concern;
article withdrawal; or
retraction.

Corrections are used when the principal findings remain valid but specific information requires amendment.

Retraction

An article may be retracted when credible evidence indicates:

fabrication;
falsification;
plagiarism;
duplicate publication;
unethical research;
serious methodological invalidity;
manipulated data or images;
unauthorized publication;
major authorship misconduct; or
other serious violations affecting the reliability of the article.

Retraction decisions are made following an appropriate editorial investigation and in accordance with recognized publication ethics principles.

12. Confidentiality of the Review Process

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, author responses, and related documents are treated as confidential materials.

Editors and reviewers must not:

disclose manuscript content to unauthorized persons;
use unpublished information for personal advantage;
circulate reviewer reports outside the editorial process;
reveal the identity of reviewers;
disclose confidential author information; or
use manuscript content before publication without permission.

The Editor may disclose limited confidential information only when necessary to:

investigate publication misconduct;
comply with legal obligations;
consult publication ethics experts;
communicate with relevant institutions; or
protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

13. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently on the basis of:

academic quality;
originality;
methodological soundness;
ethical compliance;
relevance to the journal;
reviewer assessments; and
scientific contribution.

Editorial decisions are not influenced by:

the authors’ institutional affiliation;
academic rank;
nationality;
ethnicity;
gender;
religion;
political opinion;
personal relationships;
financial status; or
payment of publication fees.

The article processing charge is administratively separate from the peer-review and editorial decision-making process. Payment does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

14. Integrity of the Double-Blind Review System

JPMSM is committed to maintaining an anonymous-author and anonymous-reviewer system throughout the peer-review process.

To protect the integrity of this system:

authors must submit anonymous review files;
reviewers must not attempt to identify authors;
authors must not attempt to identify reviewers;
reviewers and authors must not communicate directly;
reviewer reports must not contain identifying information;
editorial staff must remove accidental identifiers;
revised manuscripts must remain anonymous; and
reviewer identities remain confidential after publication.

Any deliberate attempt to compromise the anonymity, independence, confidentiality, or fairness of the review process may result in:

cancellation of the review;
replacement of the reviewer;
rejection of the manuscript;
suspension of the submission;
notification of the relevant institution; or
other appropriate editorial action.

Through this double-blind peer-review process, JPMSM seeks to ensure that every manuscript is assessed fairly, independently, confidentially, and solely on the basis of its academic quality and contribution to educational scholarship.