Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to Edumatika : Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika undergo initial editorial screening followed by double-blind peer review by qualified national and international reviewers. Final publication decisions are made by the editors on the basis of the reviewers’ reports. The process follows the COPE Core Practices and Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

1. Type of Peer Review

The journal uses a double-blind peer review system: the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. To ensure anonymity, authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and any other identifying information from the manuscript file, including document properties. Identifying details are provided only in the metadata entered in the submission system.

2. Stages of the Review Process

2.1. Submission

The author submits the manuscript through the journal’s online system (OJS). The submission is received by the Editor-in-Chief, and the system sends an automatic acknowledgement to the author.

2.2. Initial Screening (Desk Review) · within 7 days

The Editor-in-Chief and an assigned editor check the manuscript’s fit with the journal’s Focus and Scope, its compliance with the author guidelines and template, the use of English and APA 7th edition referencing, the completeness of the Declaration of Generative AI Use, and its similarity index. The manuscript is then sent for peer review, returned to the author for technical correction, or declined without review (desk rejection).

2.3. Reviewer Assignment · response to invitation within 7 days

The assigned editor invites at least three reviewers whose expertise matches the manuscript’s topic and methodology. Where possible, the reviewers include at least one reviewer from outside the author’s country. Reviewers with a conflict of interest, including those from the same institution as any author, are not assigned. Invited reviewers are asked to accept or decline the invitation within 7 days; if no response is received, another reviewer is invited.

2.4. Peer Review · 21 days (first round) / 14 days (second round)

Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript using the journal’s review form, provides comments for the author and confidential comments for the editor, and submits a recommendation. Reviewers are asked to complete the review within 21 days of accepting the invitation, and within 14 days for the re-review of a revised manuscript. The system sends an automatic reminder when the deadline has passed; if the reviewer does not respond within 7 days of the reminder, the editor may assign a replacement reviewer. Reviewers who need more time should request an extension from the editor before the deadline.

2.5. First Editorial Decision · 30–60 days after submission, following peer review

The editor considers all reviewer reports and sends the author a decision together with the anonymized reviewer comments (see Section 6). Manuscripts declined or returned during initial screening usually receive a decision within 7 days; this is why the average time to first decision reported on the journal’s home page, which includes these desk decisions, is shorter.

2.6. Revision by the Author · 14 days (minor) / 30 days (major)

The author revises the manuscript and submits it with a response letter that addresses each reviewer comment point by point and shows where changes were made. Manuscripts requiring major revision are normally returned to the original reviewers for a second round. Revisions not received by the deadline may be treated as withdrawn.

2.7. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript after verifying that all required revisions have been completed satisfactorily.

2.8. Production and Publication

Accepted articles undergo copyediting, layout, a final similarity check, and author proofreading. They are then published online in the current issue in progress.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers complete the journal’s review form in the online system. Each manuscript is rated on the following eleven criteria:

No. Criterion What reviewers assess
1 Relevance to the Focus and Scope Alignment of the article with the journal’s defined focus and scope and its intended subject areas.
2 Originality of Ideas The degree to which the ideas are distinct from existing literature and introduce fresh concepts or perspectives.
3 Novelty of Ideas The extent to which the article offers new insights or approaches not commonly found in previous work.
4 Innovation of Ideas The level of creativity in the solutions, methods, or approaches proposed to advance the field.
5 Contribution to Mathematics Education The impact of the findings on understanding, practice, or theory in mathematics education.
6 Language Clarity, Content, and Reader Comprehensibility Clarity of language, coherence of content, and accessibility to a diverse readership.
7 Abstract Quality Conciseness, clarity, and completeness of the abstract and how accurately it summarizes the key points.
8 Background, Differentiation from Previous Research, and Expected Contribution How well the article establishes the research problem, distinguishes itself from prior studies, and states its contribution.
9 Research Design and Methodology Clarity about the research type, time and location, research target, instruments, data collection technique, and data analysis technique.
10 Presentation of Results and Precision of Analysis Effective presentation of results and analysis, including the use of tables and figures to support understanding.
11 References, APA Citation Style, and In-Text Citations Accuracy and relevance of references, adherence to APA 7th edition, and proper use of in-text citations.

 

In addition to the ratings, reviewers provide written comments for the author explaining the strengths of the manuscript and the specific revisions required, and select a recommendation for the editor.

4. Reviewer Qualifications and Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least three reviewers. Reviewers are academics and practitioners in mathematics education from Indonesia and other countries, selected according to the following criteria:

  • expertise in the manuscript’s topic or research method, shown by a relevant educational background and professional experience;
  • a record of publications in peer-reviewed journals, preferably including journals indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, or SINTA;
  • a verifiable academic profile (e.g., ORCID, Scopus, Google Scholar, or SINTA);
  • no conflict of interest with the authors, including shared institutional affiliation, recent collaboration, or personal relationships; and
  • a commitment to confidentiality, objectivity, timeliness, and the journal’s publication ethics, including the prohibition on using generative AI in the review process.

5. Editorial Decision-Making

Reviewers make recommendations; decisions are made by the editors. The assigned editor weighs the quality of the arguments in each review report, not only the number of recommendations, and may invite an additional reviewer when reports conflict. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision. Possible decisions are:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted as it is or with editorial changes only.

Minor Revision: Small changes are needed; the editor checks the revision.

Major Revision: Substantial changes are needed; the revision is normally re-reviewed.

Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

Authors may appeal a decision by writing to the Editor-in-Chief with a clear justification. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.

6. Integrity of the Review Process

The journal does not offer fast-track publication, and never promises or guarantees acceptance, whether in exchange for payment of the APC or any other fee, for the involvement of editors or reviewers, or for any other reason. Every manuscript goes through the same screening and double-blind peer review process. Offers of guaranteed or accelerated publication claiming to come from the journal are fraudulent and should be reported to [email protected].

A Letter of Acceptance is issued only after the final decision to accept the manuscript has been made by the Editor-in-Chief, that is, after peer review and all required revisions have been completed. The journal does not issue an LoA, or any statement implying acceptance, for manuscripts that are submitted, under review, or under revision. A valid LoA is signed by the Editor-in-Chief and states the manuscript ID, title, authors, and date of acceptance; its authenticity can be confirmed by contacting the editorial office.

Confidentiality and COPE principles

  • The review process follows the COPE Core Practices and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
  • Manuscripts under review are confidential; reviewers must not share them or upload them to generative AI tools (see the AI Use Policy).
  • Editors and reviewers with a conflict of interest do not take part in the review (see Conflict of Interest).
  • Attempts to manipulate the review process, such as suggesting fake reviewers or coercing citations, are handled under the Research Misconduct policy.

Submission requirements checked before review:

  • The manuscript is written in English.
  • References follow APA 7th edition and are managed with a reference manager such as Mendeley.
  • The manuscript file is fully anonymized for double-blind review.
  • Any use of generative AI is declared in line with AI Use Policy.