Peer-Review-Process

Jurnal Pendidikan Karakter (JPKA) uses a double-anonymous peer review process for all original research articles and systematic literature reviews. The identities of the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process. Peer review aims to ensure that every published article is original, rigorous, ethically sound, and valuable to character education scholarship. It also aims to help authors improve their work through constructive and fair feedback. The process follows COPE's Core Practices and Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

⌚ At a glance. The whole process, from submission to the final decision, takes no more than 6 months (26 weeks); copyediting and publication are not included. The first decision is given within about 9 weeks. Revision usually takes two rounds, but further rounds may follow if the revisions need it. The final decision is normally given by week 20. The remaining weeks are reserved for extra revision rounds, agreed extensions, and third-reviewer cases. The time authors spend revising counts towards the 6 months, so authors are asked to keep to the revision deadlines.

1 · Principles

◯ Anonymity
Authors do not know who reviewed their work, and reviewers do not know who wrote it. Manuscripts must be anonymised by the authors, as described in the Author Guidelines.
 ⚖ Independence
Editorial decisions are based only on the scholarly merit of the work and its fit with the journal's scope, and are not influenced by the authors' nationality, institution, gender, religion, ethnicity, political views, or seniority.
▪ Confidentiality
Manuscripts and reviews are confidential documents and may not be shared, cited, or used before publication.
 ✎ Constructiveness
Reviews should be specific, respectful, evidence-based, and aimed at improving the manuscript.
★ Accountability
The editors make the final decision and remain responsible for the process. Reviewers advise; they do not decide.
  

2 · Step-by-Step Review Process

Step 1 · Submission and acknowledgement
  • The author submits two files through the OJS system, both prepared with the journal's official templates: the anonymised manuscript (uploaded as the Article Text) and the version with author details, which serves as the title page (uploaded as a Supplementary File). Any supplementary material is uploaded alongside them.
  • The system sends an automatic acknowledgement. Each manuscript receives a submission ID.
Step 2 · Initial editorial screening (within 14 days)
The Editor-in-Chief or a section editor checks:
  • whether the manuscript fits the journal's scope (character education);
  • whether both template files have been submitted and the manuscript follows the template: the required section order, the built-in heading levels, 5,000-8,000 words including the abstract and references, British English spelling, APA 7th edition citations and references, and all end-matter statements;
  • whether the manuscript is properly anonymised, following the anonymity checklist in the template, including the file metadata;
  • the level of similarity (Turnitin/iThenticate) and signs of misconduct;
  • the basic quality of language, argument, and method.
Possible outcomes of the screening:
  • Sent to review.
  • Returned to author for technical corrections (to be resubmitted within 7 days).
  • Desk rejection (out of scope, insufficient quality, or ethical problems), with a short explanation.
Step 3 · Assignment of a handling editor
  • The Editor-in-Chief assigns a section editor with relevant expertise to manage the manuscript.
  • Editors with a conflict of interest (for example, from the same institution as an author, a recent co-author, or a supervisor) do not handle the manuscript.
Step 4 · Reviewer selection and invitation
The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the topic or method. Reviewers must:
  • have expertise in the topic or method of the manuscript (a doctorate is not required);
  • have at least one publication as an author in a journal indexed in Scopus or Web of Science, preferably in a related field;
  • be verifiable through an institutional email address and ORCID iD.
  • Where possible, at least one reviewer is from outside the journal's home institution, and reviewers come from different institutions.
  • Authors may suggest or oppose particular reviewers in the comments to the editor. Suggested reviewers are checked independently and are not necessarily invited.
  • Invited reviewers respond within 10 days. If a reviewer declines or does not respond, the editor invites another.
Step 5 · Review (within 6 weeks of the first invitation)
  • Reviewers have 28 days to complete the review. Reminders are sent automatically, and extensions of up to 7 days may be agreed with the editor. If a review is still overdue, the editor replaces the reviewer.
  • Reviewers use the journal's review form and evaluate the manuscript against the criteria in Section 3. They give comments to the authors and confidential comments to the editor.
  • Reviewers may annotate the manuscript file. They must remove any identifying information from the annotated file (File > Info > Inspect Document) before uploading it.
  • Each reviewer recommends one of the decisions in Section 4.
Step 6 · Editorial decision
  • Within 10 days of receiving the reviews, the handling editor considers all reviews, the reviewers' recommendations, and their own reading of the manuscript, and then makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
  • If the reviews conflict sharply, the editor may invite a third reviewer or ask a member of the editorial board for advice.
  • The decision is sent to the author with all reviewer comments, anonymised, and an editor's summary of the main points to address.
Step 7 · Revision
  • Minor revisions: to be resubmitted within 2 weeks. Major revisions: to be resubmitted within 4 weeks. One extension of up to 2 weeks may be requested before the deadline.
  • Authors upload the revised anonymised manuscript, still in the journal template and with changes highlighted or tracked, and a response to reviewers table that answers every comment point by point and shows where the change was made (page/line), or explains respectfully why a change was not made.
  • Revisions not submitted within the deadline (or an agreed extension) may be treated as new submissions.
Step 8 · Re-review and final decision
  • After minor revisions, the editor checks the revision within 2 weeks. After major revisions, the manuscript returns to the original reviewers, who have 14 days to re-review it.
  • Revision normally takes two rounds, but further rounds may be held if the revised manuscript shows clear progress yet still needs improvement. Each further round follows the same deadlines (author revision of 2–4 weeks; re-review within 14 days) and uses the reserve weeks in the timeline. If the manuscript does not make adequate progress between rounds, it is declined. In exceptional cases where the extra rounds go beyond 6 months, the editor informs the authors of the revised schedule.
  • The final decision to accept or reject is made by the Editor-in-Chief no later than 6 months after submission.
Step 9 · Post-acceptance
  • The accepted manuscript proceeds to copyediting, proofreading by the authors, layout, and online publication with a DOI.
  • Authors provide the final version in the template with author details, which carries the complete author block and end-matter statements, together with high-resolution figures and any signed forms.

⌚ Timeline summary (maximum 6 months)

Stage Time allowed Cumulative (weeks)
Initial screening and assignment of handling editor 2 weeks 2
Reviewer invitation and acceptance 2 weeks 4
First-round review 4 weeks 8
First decision 1 week 9
Revision 1 by the authors (major) 4 weeks 13
Re-review and second decision 3 weeks 16
Revision 2 by the authors (minor) 2 weeks 18
Final check by the editor 1 week 19
Final decision by the Editor-in-Chief 1 week 20
Reserve for extra revision rounds, extensions, or a third reviewer up to 6 weeks 26 (maximum, about 6 months)

Manuscripts that need only minor revisions after the first round usually receive a final decision by week 13. Copyediting, proofreading, and publication follow acceptance and are not included in the 6 months.

3 · Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess:

Relevance and contribution The importance of the topic for character education; the originality and novelty of the contribution to theory and/or practice.
Introduction and theoretical framework Whether the problem, research gap, and objective are clear, and whether the theoretical or conceptual framework is appropriate and actually used in the analysis.
Literature Whether the review of the literature is current, relevant, and critical, drawing on recent international and regional scholarship.
Method The appropriateness and transparency of the design, data, sampling, instruments, and analysis; validity, reliability, or trustworthiness; ethical procedures; and, for systematic reviews, compliance with PRISMA 2020.
Results Whether the findings are clearly presented and adequately supported by data, with appropriate tables and figures.
Discussion Whether the findings are interpreted in light of theory and prior studies, and whether the novelty, theoretical and practical implications, and limitations are made clear.
Conclusion Whether the conclusions follow from the evidence and answer the research question(s).
Presentation The clarity of the argument and the quality of the academic English, written in British English; the structure and heading levels; APA 7th edition referencing; and compliance with the journal template.
Ethics Any concerns about plagiarism, data integrity, consent, conflicts of interest, or undisclosed use of AI.

4 · Decision Categories

✔ Accept
The manuscript can be published as it is, or with only editorial changes.
 ✎ Minor revisions
Limited changes are needed; the manuscript is not normally sent for full re-review.
↻ Major revisions
Substantial changes are needed, and the revised manuscript will be reviewed again.
 ⇄ Resubmit for review
The work has potential but needs fundamental reworking. The author may submit a substantially revised version as a new submission, which will go through the full review process again.
✖ Decline
The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.
  

5 · Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Accept an invitation only if you have the relevant expertise and can meet the deadline.
  • Declare any conflict of interest and decline the invitation if one exists. Conflicts include recognising the authors, recent collaboration, being at the same institution, or a competing interest.
  • Keep the manuscript confidential. Do not share it, use its content, or contact the authors.
  • Do not upload the manuscript or any part of it to generative AI tools, as this breaches confidentiality. Reviewers are fully responsible for the content of their reviews.
  • Write objective, specific, and courteous comments. Avoid personal remarks. Do not ask authors to cite your own work unless there is a genuine scholarly reason.
  • Do not try to identify the authors. If you become aware of their identity, inform the editor.
  • Report any suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or ethical concern to the editor confidentially.

6 · Responsibilities of Editors

  • Ensure a fair, timely, and confidential process, and protect the anonymity of authors and reviewers.
  • Choose qualified reviewers without conflicts of interest, and monitor the quality of reviews. Remove or edit inappropriate comments before sending reviews to authors.
  • Base decisions on the evidence and the reviews, and explain them clearly to authors.
  • Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled by another editor, and the editor-author is excluded from all information about the review.

7 · Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors who believe that a decision was based on a factual error, a misunderstanding, or a procedural irregularity may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision.
  • The appeal must explain the grounds in detail and respond to the reviewers' comments. Disagreement with the decision alone is not grounds for appeal.
  • The appeal is considered by an editor not involved in the original decision. This editor may consult the reviewers or seek a new independent opinion.
  • The outcome is communicated within about 30 days. The decision on appeal is final. While an appeal is under consideration, the manuscript should not be submitted elsewhere.

8 · Reviewer Recognition

Every reviewer who completes a review receives a certificate of reviewing from the journal. The certificate gives the reviewer's name, the review period, and the number of manuscripts reviewed, without disclosing manuscript details.

The names and affiliations of reviewers are listed on the journal website on the Reviewers page.

Related policies. Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics, and Copyright Notice. Contact: the editorial office, through the journal website or jpka@uny.ac.id.