Review Process

Desk Review

At the initial stage, the editorial team screens submitted manuscripts to ensure compliance with the journal’s author guidelines, scope, and academic quality standards. Authors may be asked to revise their manuscript if it does not fully meet these criteria. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject manuscripts deemed unsuitable without further review.

Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the desk review are forwarded to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The double-blind peer review process is expected to be completed within three weeks. Manuscripts that do not pass the desk review will not proceed to this stage.

Reviewer’s Recommendation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accepted: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is acceptable after minor corrections.
• Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial improvements, such as additional data analysis, theoretical refinement, or structural rewriting.
• Rejected: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication due to fundamental weaknesses.

These recommendations guide the Editorial Board’s decision on the manuscript’s next steps.

Revision Process

For manuscripts requiring revisions, the editor will provide reviewer comments and a review summary form to the author. Authors must address the feedback as follows:

• Major Revisions: Authors have three weeks to revise and resubmit.
• Minor Revisions: Authors have one week to revise and resubmit.
• Authors must complete and attach the review summary form with their revised manuscript.

Final Editorial Decision

After revisions are submitted, the Editorial Board re-evaluates the manuscript to ensure all reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed. Manuscripts may still be rejected if revisions are insufficient or not taken seriously.

Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts undergo proofreading to ensure clarity, coherence, and linguistic quality before publication.

Publication Confirmation

The final manuscript layout is sent to the author for confirmation. Authors may correct typographical errors but cannot make substantive changes. Once approved, the Editorial Secretary processes the manuscript for online publication on the journal’s website and, if applicable, for print publication.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality of Pijar: Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Indonesia through objective and critical assessments. Before reviewing, reviewers should consider:

• Relevance to Expertise: Ensure the manuscript aligns with your expertise. Notify the Editorial Secretary if it does not.
• Availability: Complete the review within two weeks. Contact the Editorial Secretary if more time is needed.
• Conflict of Interest: Report any conflicts of interest with the manuscript, authors, or institutions to the Editorial Secretary.
• Plagiarism Concerns: Report any indications of plagiarism or ethical violations immediately.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Title: Does the title clearly reflect the manuscript’s content?
• Abstract: Is the abstract concise and accurate?
• Introduction: Does it provide sufficient background, objectives, or hypotheses? Is relevant literature integrated?
• Compliance with Guidelines: Does the manuscript follow the journal’s author guidelines?
• Content Evaluation: Does the manuscript offer novelty, originality, and scholarly contribution? Are theoretical frameworks and references appropriate?
• Methodology: Are data collection methods clearly described? Do they address research questions? Are new methods explained for replication?
• Results and Discussion: Are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately? Does the discussion connect findings to existing literature?
• Conclusion: Is the conclusion concise, consistent with objectives, and free of unnecessary repetition? Are recommendations relevant?
• Tables and Figures: Are they effective, clearly labeled, and properly sourced?
• References: Are in-text citations and the reference list formatted in APA style? Are at least 80% of references from recent journal articles (last 5 years)?
• Writing Style: Is the manuscript clear, grammatically correct, and suitable for academic publication?

Reviewers must complete the Review Form, filling all required sections and providing one of the following recommendations:

• Accepted: Suitable for publication.
• Accepted with Minor Revisions: Acceptable with minor corrections.
• Accepted with Major Revisions: Requires substantial revisions before reconsideration.
• Rejected: Unsuitable for publication due to fundamental weaknesses.

Reviewers must provide their identity in the designated columns of the Review Form upon completion.

For inquiries, contact the editorial team at Jurnalavidpedia@gmail.com.