Peer Review Policy

The Indonesian Education Policy and Justice Review (IEPJR) applies a double-anonymous peer review process to ensure rigorous, fair, independent, and constructive evaluation of all research manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

The peer review process is designed to assess the originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, scholarly significance, and international relevance of submitted manuscripts. IEPJR seeks to ensure that published articles meet high academic standards while maintaining a fair and transparent editorial process.

1. Editorial Screening

All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review. The editorial team evaluates submissions for:

  • alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope;

  • originality and potential scholarly contribution;

  • appropriate theoretical positioning;

  • methodological rigor and research design;

  • clarity of research questions and objectives;

  • compliance with publication ethics and research integrity requirements;

  • adherence to the journal's submission and formatting requirements; and

  • sufficient engagement with relevant national and international scholarship.

Manuscripts that fall substantially outside the journal's scope, fail to meet basic scholarly or ethical requirements, or demonstrate insufficient academic quality may be rejected at the editorial screening stage without external review.

2. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least three independent external reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter, methodology, or theoretical perspective of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • relevant academic and research expertise;

  • demonstrated scholarly experience in the manuscript's subject area;

  • methodological competence where appropriate;

  • independence from the authors and their institutions;

  • absence of actual or potential conflicts of interest; and

  • ability to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.

The journal seeks, where feasible, to involve reviewers from different institutions and geographical contexts in order to strengthen the international and interdisciplinary quality of the review process.

3. Double-Anonymous Review

IEPJR uses a double-anonymous peer review model. Authors' identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors.

Authors are therefore required to ensure that manuscripts submitted for review do not contain information that unnecessarily reveals their identities. Reviewers must likewise respect the anonymity and confidentiality of the review process.

In exceptional circumstances where complete anonymity cannot reasonably be maintained, the editorial team will take appropriate measures to minimize potential bias and protect the integrity of the evaluation process.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts using criteria appropriate to the article type. Key considerations include:

  1. Originality and significance — whether the manuscript addresses a meaningful and sufficiently original research problem.

  2. Theoretical contribution — whether the manuscript is appropriately grounded in relevant theoretical and conceptual debates and contributes to existing scholarship.

  3. Methodological rigor — whether the research design, data sources, analytical procedures, and methodological choices are appropriate, transparent, and sufficiently justified.

  4. Evidence and analysis — whether the findings are adequately supported by the evidence and whether the analysis is logically developed.

  5. Engagement with literature — whether the manuscript engages critically with relevant and current national and international literature.

  6. International relevance — whether the findings provide insights that can contribute to broader scholarly debates beyond the immediate Indonesian or local context.

  7. Ethical integrity — whether the research demonstrates appropriate consideration of research ethics, participant protection, data integrity, and other relevant ethical requirements.

  8. Clarity and organization — whether the manuscript is coherent, well structured, and presented in clear academic language.

  9. Policy and scholarly implications — where relevant, whether the manuscript identifies meaningful implications for education policy, law, governance, institutional practice, or social justice.

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between major substantive concerns and minor editorial or presentation issues.

5. Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports should be:

  • objective, evidence-based, and professionally written;

  • focused on the scholarly quality of the manuscript;

  • constructive and sufficiently detailed to assist authors in improving their work;

  • free from discriminatory, defamatory, offensive, or personal comments; and

  • clearly distinguishable between essential revisions and optional recommendations.

Reviewers should not recommend citations solely to increase their own citation counts, promote personal work, or unnecessarily influence the journal's citation metrics.

Reviewers should also notify the editors if they identify substantial overlap, suspected plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other potential breaches of research integrity.

6. Editorial Decisions

Following the peer review process, the Editor-in-Chief or designated Associate/Section Editor makes the final editorial decision based on the reviewers' assessments, the manuscript's scholarly quality, and the journal's editorial standards.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept — the manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial adjustments.

  • Minor Revision — limited revisions are required before a final decision can be made.

  • Major Revision — substantial revisions are required, after which the manuscript may undergo further peer review.

  • Reject and Resubmit — the manuscript has significant weaknesses but may be considered as a substantially revised new submission, subject to the journal's policies.

  • Reject — the manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

A recommendation from a reviewer is advisory rather than determinative. The editorial decision may differ from an individual reviewer's recommendation when justified by the overall evidence and editorial assessment.

7. Revision and Re-Review

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond systematically to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts should be accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Where major revisions are requested, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by new reviewers, at the discretion of the editors.

The editors may reject a revised manuscript if the required revisions have not been adequately addressed or if substantial new concerns arise during the revision process.

8. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and associated materials as confidential documents. Reviewers may not:

  • share the manuscript or review materials with unauthorized individuals;

  • use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage;

  • disclose the content of the manuscript before publication;

  • contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript without authorization from the editors; or

  • reproduce, distribute, or otherwise exploit unpublished material.

If reviewers wish to involve a qualified colleague or trainee in the review process, they should obtain permission from the handling editor before doing so and ensure that the confidentiality of the manuscript is maintained.

9. Conflicts of Interest and Reviewer Independence

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity.

Potential conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

  • current or recent collaboration with any of the authors;

  • institutional affiliation with an author;

  • personal, professional, financial, or academic relationships that may affect impartiality;

  • direct competition involving closely related unpublished research; or

  • any other circumstance that could reasonably compromise independent judgment.

Reviewers who have a significant conflict of interest should decline the invitation and inform the editor promptly.

10. Ethical and Research Integrity Concerns

IEPJR is committed to maintaining high standards of research integrity and publication ethics. If concerns arise during peer review regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication or falsification of data, inappropriate authorship, unethical research practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, manipulation of the peer review process, or other forms of misconduct, the editors may suspend the review or publication process while the matter is investigated.

Where necessary, the journal may request clarification, supporting documentation, ethics approval information, research data, or other relevant evidence from authors or their institutions.

Serious cases may result in rejection, withdrawal of a manuscript, retraction of a published article, notification of the relevant institution, or other appropriate action in accordance with recognized publication-ethics principles.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they can provide substantive grounds indicating that the decision resulted from a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, conflict of interest, or demonstrable misunderstanding of the manuscript.

Appeals must provide a clear and reasoned explanation of the grounds for reconsideration. Appeals that merely disagree with the reviewers' academic judgment without substantive justification may not be considered.

Appeals are handled by the editorial team independently of the original decision where reasonably practicable. The decision following an appeal is normally final.

Authors, reviewers, and other parties may also submit complaints concerning editorial procedures, publication ethics, or reviewer conduct. Such complaints will be treated confidentially and investigated fairly.

12. Review Timelines

IEPJR aims to conduct peer review in a timely manner while maintaining rigorous scholarly standards. Reviewers are normally given a defined period to complete their assessments. If a reviewer is unable to meet the requested deadline, the editorial team may seek an extension or appoint an alternative reviewer.

The journal does not compromise the quality or independence of peer review solely to accelerate publication.

13. Reviewer Recognition

With the reviewer's consent, IEPJR may acknowledge peer reviewers for their scholarly service through appropriate recognition mechanisms. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless the reviewer has explicitly agreed to disclosure through a specific journal initiative or review model.

14. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. Editors and reviewers must not allow commercial interests, institutional affiliations, political considerations, personal relationships, or other inappropriate influences to determine publication decisions.

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for ensuring the integrity, fairness, and academic independence of the peer review process.

Through this policy, IEPJR is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, ethical, and internationally credible peer review system that supports high-quality scholarship and strengthens the journal's contribution to global debates on education policy, law, governance, and justice.