Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini (JUPAUD)
JUPAUD applies a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of manuscripts published in the journal.
Peer Review Model
JUPAUD uses a double-anonymous peer-review system for research articles and other scholarly manuscripts that require peer review. Under this model, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process.
Each research article is evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in early childhood education or the specific subject area of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research interests, publication record, and suitability for the manuscript.
Review Process
The manuscript is submitted through the OJS platform. Authors are required to ensure that the manuscript follows the journal's author guidelines, ethical requirements, formatting standards, and submission requirements.
The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope and meets the basic scholarly, structural, ethical, and technical requirements.
Submitted manuscripts may be screened for plagiarism, excessive similarity, duplicate publication, and other potential research-integrity concerns before being sent for external peer review.
The editor selects at least two independent reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript. Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or research involved in the manuscript.
The manuscript is reviewed independently by at least two reviewers. Author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on scholarly quality, originality, methodology, clarity, relevance, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.
After considering the reviewers' recommendations and comments, the editor makes the editorial decision. Possible decisions include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
When revisions are required, authors must respond to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript within the specified period. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent of the revisions.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, proofreading, metadata verification, DOI registration or deposit procedures where applicable, and final publication.
Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Originality and contribution to existing knowledge.
Alignment with the aims and scope of JUPAUD.
Appropriateness and clarity of the research methods.
Validity, clarity, and interpretation of research findings.
Quality of interpretation and connection with relevant literature.
Clarity, organization, language, tables, figures, and references.
Compliance with applicable research and publication ethics.
Adequacy, relevance, and accuracy of cited scholarly sources.
Reviewer Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all related materials as confidential documents. Manuscripts must not be shared with or discussed with unauthorized individuals, and unpublished information must not be used for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an assignment. A reviewer should decline the assignment when a conflict may compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, the impartiality of the review.
Editorial Decision-Making
The final editorial decision is the responsibility of the editor. Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully but do not automatically determine the final decision. Editors may request additional reviews when reviewer recommendations substantially differ, when clarification is required, or when specialist expertise is needed.
Special Issues and Exceptions
If JUPAUD publishes special issues or manuscripts requiring special editorial arrangements, the same standards of editorial oversight and external peer review apply. Any exception to the standard peer-review process will be clearly identified and transparently described by the journal.
Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers
To protect confidentiality and research integrity, reviewers should not use generative artificial intelligence tools or large language models to generate peer-review reports or substantive evaluations of manuscripts.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, originality, and integrity of their evaluations. Any permitted use of automated tools must comply with the journal's AI policy and must not involve uploading confidential manuscript content to external systems.
Review Timeline
JUPAUD aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review. The expected review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and author response time. Authors will be informed if significant delays occur.
