Peer Review Process
|
Panggulawentah: Journal of Education and Social Humanities (PJESH) applies a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, and relevance of all published manuscripts. Every submission is evaluated through a structured review system that emphasizes fairness, confidentiality, and scholarly integrity. PJESH implements a double-blind peer-review method, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Reviewers are not permitted to contact authors directly, and all communication is managed exclusively through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS). Initial Editorial Assessment All manuscripts submitted to PJESH undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess their compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and ethical standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic criteria may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected prior to peer review. If a manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to a handling editor. When an editor serves as an author, the review process is supervised by another independent member of the editorial board to avoid conflicts of interest. Reviewer Selection For each manuscript, the editor appoints at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter. Reviewer selection is based on academic background, research experience, publication record, and previous reviewing performance. Editors also consider potential conflicts of interest to ensure objectivity. In specific circumstances—such as highly specialized or emerging research areas—editorial judgment may be exercised if securing two external reviewers proves difficult. In such cases, the editor may serve as an additional reviewer, provided that they possess demonstrated expertise in the field. Reviewer identities and contact details are carefully verified, and institutional email addresses are preferred. All communications between editors and reviewers remain strictly confidential. Review Criteria and Evaluation Reviewers are expected to provide thorough, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations. Review reports should address, but are not limited to, the following aspects:
Superficial or unsupported review reports are not considered sufficient for editorial decision-making. Ethical Conduct of Reviewers All reviewers involved in PJESH are required to adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers must conduct evaluations objectively, avoid personal criticism, and base their comments solely on scholarly merit. Any potential conflicts of interest—academic, personal, or financial—must be disclosed prior to accepting a review invitation. Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers may not share, reproduce, or use unpublished material for personal research purposes without written permission from the authors. Editorial Decision and Author Notification Editors make publication decisions based on reviewer reports, editorial judgment, and the journal’s publication standards. Decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Reviewer comments and editorial decisions are communicated to authors through the OJS platform. Editors are not bound exclusively by reviewer recommendations and may reject manuscripts if serious methodological, ethical, or conceptual concerns are identified. Handling Ethical Issues If reviewers or editors identify potential ethical issues—such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or authorship concerns—the matter will be investigated in accordance with PJESH’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. Appropriate actions, including revision requests, rejection, or retraction, may be taken when necessary. |
