Peer Reviewer Process

Every manuscript submitted to Jurnal Inovasi dan Riset Pendidikan (JIRP) undergoes an editorial screening and peer-review process to ensure its scholarly quality, originality, novelty, and relevance to the field of education. The journal implements a double-blind peer-review system consisting of the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editor to determine their relevance to JIRP's focus and scope, compliance with the journal's formatting requirements and official template, and similarity index. Manuscripts that do not meet the initial requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without proceeding to further peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two reviewers with relevant expertise and qualifications in the subject area of the submitted article. Under this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential, ensuring that neither party is aware of the other's identity throughout the review process.

3. Review and Evaluation

Reviewers objectively evaluate manuscripts based on the following key aspects:

  • Originality and research novelty, particularly innovative contributions to the field of education.

  • Appropriateness of the research design and methodology.

  • Quality of data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

  • Consistency of the results and discussion with the research objectives and theoretical framework.

  • Clarity, organization, and overall quality of academic writing.

  • Research contributions and implications for the advancement of educational knowledge and practices.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Following the evaluation, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial revisions.

  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor improvements before acceptance.

  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may undergo further review.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet JIRP's scholarly quality standards or publication requirements.

5. Editorial Decision

The editor makes the final editorial decision based on the reviewers' assessments and recommendations. If there are significant disagreements between reviewers, the editor may appoint a third reviewer to provide an additional assessment before making the final decision.

6. Revision Process

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' comments and recommendations and submit a response to reviewers document explaining how each comment has been addressed. The revision deadlines are as follows:

  • Minor Revision: A maximum of 14 calendar days.

  • Major Revision: A maximum of 30 calendar days.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

7. Copyediting and Publication

Manuscripts that have been formally accepted will undergo language editing, technical checking, and layout preparation. The final version will then be sent to the authors for proofreading and approval before publication in the nearest available issue according to JIRP's publication schedule.

Review Timeline

The target timeframe from manuscript submission to the initial editorial decision is 4–8 weeks. This timeframe may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the requirements of the review process.

All editorial decisions are made independently by the editor based on scholarly quality, peer-review assessments, and JIRP's publication policies. Editorial decisions are final and are not influenced by the interests of the publisher.