Peer Review Process

Journal of Evaluation and Strategic Studies of Basic Education (JEKAS) / Jurnal Evaluasi dan Kajian Strategis Pendidikan Dasar applies a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, validity, relevance, and scholarly contribution of all manuscripts considered for publication. JEKAS employs a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. The editorial and peer-review process consists of the following stages:

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the JEKAS Online Journal System (OJS). Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts comply with the journal's Aims & Scope, Author Guidelines, manuscript template, publication ethics, Generative AI Policy, and submission requirements.

Submission to JEKAS implies that the manuscript:

is original;
has not been previously published;
is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal;
has been approved by all listed authors; and
complies with applicable principles of research and publication ethics.

2. Administrative and Technical Check

The editorial team conducts an initial administrative and technical examination to determine whether the submission meets the journal's basic requirements.

The examination may include:

completeness of manuscript files;
completeness and accuracy of submission metadata;
conformity with the JEKAS manuscript template;
completeness and consistency of authorship information;
manuscript structure and organization;
availability of required ethical statements or declarations;
consistency between citations and references; and
compliance with other technical submission requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic technical requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before proceeding to scientific editorial assessment.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Manuscripts that pass the administrative and technical check undergo an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editor.

This stage determines whether the manuscript is sufficiently relevant, scientifically sound, methodologically appropriate, and potentially valuable to proceed to external peer review.

The initial screening includes an assessment of:

conformity with the Aims & Scope of JEKAS;
substantive relevance to elementary/basic education;
clarity and significance of the research problem;
originality and potential scholarly contribution;
clarity of research objectives, questions, or hypotheses;
adequacy of theoretical or conceptual foundations;
appropriateness of the research design and methodology;
adequacy of participants, sampling, instruments, and data-collection procedures;
appropriateness of data-analysis techniques;
consistency between objectives, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions;
adequacy and currency of scholarly references;
compliance with research and publication ethics; and
overall academic quality and readiness for external review.

A manuscript is not considered within the scope merely because the participants are elementary-school students or the research was conducted in an elementary school. The Editor assesses whether the primary research problem, theoretical framework, analysis, and contribution substantively address teaching, learning, assessment, curriculum, educational technology, student development, school management, or other strategic dimensions of elementary education.

4. Preliminary Assessment of Internal and External Validity

As part of the initial editorial screening, the Editor conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript's internal and external validity, where applicable to the research design.

The assessment of internal validity considers whether the study provides a reasonable basis for the relationships, effects, differences, interpretations, or conclusions claimed by the authors. This may include examination of:

appropriateness of the research design;
participant or sample selection;
group comparability, where applicable;
validity and reliability of instruments;
implementation of interventions;
potential confounding variables;
data-collection procedures;
appropriateness of statistical or qualitative analysis; and
consistency between evidence and conclusions.

The assessment of external validity considers whether the population, educational setting, grade level, school characteristics, research context, and study limitations are adequately described and whether claims regarding applicability, transferability, or generalization are proportionate to the available evidence.

For qualitative, Classroom Action Research, development studies, case studies, and other designs where conventional validity terminology may not be directly applicable, corresponding criteria such as credibility, dependability, methodological coherence, transferability, transparency, and appropriateness of claims are considered.

This assessment functions as an initial scientific screening and does not replace the more detailed methodological and substantive evaluation conducted by peer reviewers.

Manuscripts with fundamental weaknesses in scope, scientific validity, methodology, ethics, theoretical grounding, originality, or scholarly contribution may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

5. Similarity and Research Integrity Screening

Manuscripts considered suitable following initial editorial screening may undergo similarity and research-integrity checks.

The editorial team may examine indications of:

plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap;
duplicate or redundant publication;
inappropriate citation practices;
fabricated or unverifiable references;
data fabrication or falsification;
inappropriate image or data manipulation;
authorship concerns;
undisclosed conflicts of interest;
inappropriate or undisclosed use of Generative AI; and
other potential violations of research or publication ethics.

A similarity percentage is not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision. The Editor evaluates the nature, extent, location, and context of identified similarities.

Likewise, AI-content detection scores, where used, are treated only as preliminary indicators and not as standalone evidence of misconduct.

6. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial and integrity screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in elementary education and/or the methodology employed in the study.

Reviewer selection considers:

subject-matter expertise;
methodological competence;
relevance to the manuscript topic;
independence and objectivity;
absence of conflicts of interest; and
ability to provide a constructive and timely scholarly evaluation.

JEKAS applies a double-blind peer review process. Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

7. Peer Review

Reviewers critically and independently evaluate the manuscript.

The evaluation generally considers:

relevance to JEKAS's Aims & Scope;
significance of the educational problem;
originality and novelty;
contribution to elementary/basic education;
adequacy of theoretical or conceptual grounding;
methodological rigor;
appropriateness of participants and sampling;
validity and reliability of research instruments, where applicable;
adequacy of intervention or implementation procedures;
appropriateness of data analysis;
internal and external validity or corresponding quality criteria;
clarity and accuracy of results;
depth and quality of discussion;
relationship between findings, theory, and previous research;
consistency between findings and conclusions;
educational and practical implications;
limitations of the study;
quality and relevance of references; and
compliance with research and publication ethics.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and academically reasoned comments that assist both the Editor in making an editorial decision and the authors in improving the manuscript.

8. Design-Specific Review Considerations

Because JEKAS accepts diverse research approaches in elementary education, reviewers consider methodological standards appropriate to the design employed.

For experimental and quasi-experimental studies, particular attention may be given to group selection, baseline equivalence, intervention fidelity, measurement quality, confounding variables, statistical assumptions, effect estimates, and appropriateness of causal claims.

For Classroom Action Research (CAR/PTK), reviewers consider whether the manuscript demonstrates an authentic classroom problem, systematic cycles of planning, action, observation, and reflection, evidence of improvement, and meaningful pedagogical reflection.

For Research and Development (R&D) or educational development studies, reviewers consider the theoretical basis of the product, development procedures, expert validation, feasibility or usability, testing procedures, and evidence supporting the claims made about the developed product.

For qualitative studies, reviewers consider methodological coherence, participant selection, data adequacy, credibility, transparency of analysis, evidence supporting interpretations, reflexivity where appropriate, and transferability of findings.

For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, reviewers consider the transparency and reproducibility of search strategies, eligibility criteria, study-selection procedures, quality or risk-of-bias assessment where appropriate, synthesis procedures, and the strength of conclusions.

9. Reviewer Recommendation

Following the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

Accept Submission;
Revisions Required / Minor Revision;
Resubmit for Review / Major Revision; or
Decline Submission.

Reviewer recommendations constitute an important component of the editorial process but do not constitute the final publication decision.

10. Editorial Decision

The Editor evaluates the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript's overall scientific quality, methodological rigor, validity, originality, ethical compliance, relevance to elementary education, and potential scholarly contribution.

The editorial decision may be:

Accepted;
Minor Revision;
Major Revision; or
Rejected.

When reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the Editor does not determine the decision merely by counting reviewer votes. Instead, the Editor evaluates the scientific substance and justification of the reviewers' comments.

Where necessary, the Editor may:

conduct an additional editorial assessment;
request clarification from reviewers;
consult another member of the Editorial Board; or
appoint an additional independent reviewer.

The Editor-in-Chief and/or responsible Editor retains final authority over editorial decisions.

11. Author Revision

When revision is requested, authors must carefully address all relevant comments from the Editor and reviewers.

Authors are generally required to submit:

a revised manuscript; and
a detailed Response to Reviewers.

The response should address reviewer comments individually and explain:

what has been revised;
where the revision appears in the manuscript;
how the revision addresses the concern; or
why a particular recommendation was not followed, supported by an appropriate scholarly justification.

Authors should not merely state that a correction has been made. Responses should enable the Editor and reviewers to clearly identify and evaluate the revisions.

Failure to adequately address substantive scientific or methodological concerns may result in additional revision or rejection.

12. Re-Evaluation of the Revised Manuscript

Revised manuscripts are evaluated to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the issues identified during the previous evaluation.

For minor revisions, the responsible Editor may evaluate the revised manuscript directly when the changes do not require further independent scientific assessment.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for another round of evaluation.

An additional reviewer may be appointed when the revision introduces substantial methodological changes or when additional expertise is required.

A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

13. Final Editorial Evaluation

Before acceptance, the Editor conducts a final evaluation to ensure that:

substantive reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed;
the manuscript remains consistent with JEKAS's Aims & Scope;
the research problem and contribution to elementary education are clear;
methodological and analytical concerns have been adequately resolved;
findings support the conclusions;
causal, generalization, and effectiveness claims are proportionate to the research design and evidence;
study limitations are appropriately acknowledged;
educational implications are supported by the findings;
references and citations are appropriate and verifiable;
required ethical statements and declarations have been provided; and
the manuscript has achieved an acceptable scholarly standard for publication.

The Editor may request additional clarification or correction if unresolved scientific, ethical, or technical issues remain.

14. Acceptance and Production

Once the manuscript successfully completes the editorial and peer-review process, the Editor issues the final acceptance decision.

The manuscript then proceeds to the production stage, which may include:

copyediting;
language and consistency checking;
reference and metadata verification;
layout and typesetting;
author proofreading; and
final publication.

Authors are responsible for carefully reviewing the final proof and promptly reporting necessary corrections before publication.

Editorial Principles

Throughout the editorial and peer-review process, Journal of Evaluation and Strategic Studies of Basic Education (JEKAS) is committed to the principles of fairness, confidentiality, editorial independence, transparency, research integrity, scholarly accountability, and freedom from conflicts of interest.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's:

scientific quality;
originality and scholarly contribution;
methodological rigor;
validity and credibility;
substantive relevance to elementary/basic education;
compliance with research and publication ethics; and
potential contribution to educational theory, research, policy, or practice.

Decisions must not be influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, academic position, personal background, or other characteristics unrelated to scholarly merit.

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Unpublished information obtained through the editorial or peer-review process must not be used for personal, academic, commercial, or professional advantage.

The use of Generative AI by editors and reviewers is governed by the journal's Generative AI Policy, particularly regarding confidentiality, human accountability, data protection, and the prohibition against delegating scientific judgment or editorial decisions to AI systems.

Peer Review Model

Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review
Number of Reviewers: At least two independent reviewers
Initial Editorial Screening: Mandatory before external peer review
Validity Screening: Preliminary internal and external validity assessment during initial screening
Research Integrity Screening: Conducted as required
Revision: Minor or Major Revision based on scientific assessment
Final Decision: Editor-in-Chief and/or responsible Editor
Primary Review Criteria: Scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, validity, ethical compliance, relevance to elementary education, and scholarly contribution