Peer Review Process

Caruban: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan Dasar applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and relevance of published manuscripts.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the Editorial Team to determine whether they are suitable for the journal's focus and scope and comply with the journal's submission requirements.

The initial screening includes an assessment of:

  • relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  • originality and scholarly contribution;

  • compliance with the manuscript template and author guidelines;

  • clarity of research objectives and research questions;

  • appropriateness of the research design and methodology;

  • ethical considerations, where applicable;

  • quality and adequacy of references; and

  • potential plagiarism or substantial textual similarity.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected without external peer review.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Caruban generally assigns at least two independent reviewers to evaluate each manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, and potential absence of conflicts of interest.

Authors and reviewers are not informed of each other's identities during the review process.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Caruban uses a double-blind peer-review model, in which:

  • the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers; and

  • the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations. Reviewer comments should focus on the academic quality and scholarly contribution of the manuscript and should not contain personal or discriminatory remarks.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. Originality and novelty of the research;

  2. Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  3. Clarity and significance of the research problem;

  4. Adequacy of the theoretical framework and literature review;

  5. Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;

  6. Validity and clarity of data analysis;

  7. Presentation and interpretation of findings;

  8. Quality of discussion and connection with previous research;

  9. Clarity and coherence of the manuscript;

  10. Quality and relevance of references; and

  11. Overall contribution to research, theory, policy, or practice in elementary education.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor makes the final editorial decision.

The possible editorial decisions are:

  • Accept – the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

  • Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions before publication.

  • Major Revision – substantial revisions are required and the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

  • Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, or editorial standards.

The final editorial decision is the responsibility of the Editor and is based on the overall quality of the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, and the journal's editorial policies.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

  1. a revised version of the manuscript; and

  2. a response to reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Authors are expected to clearly indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript where appropriate.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, particularly when major revisions are required.

7. Review and Editorial Decision Timeline

The peer-review process normally takes approximately 4–12 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required.

The editorial decision is expected to be provided within a maximum of 12 weeks from the date of submission, subject to the completion of the necessary editorial and peer-review processes.

These timeframes are intended as general targets and may vary depending on the circumstances of individual submissions.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to Caruban are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript content or use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts or review materials with third parties without permission from the Editor.

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their evaluation. A reviewer should decline the assignment if they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic relationship with the authors that could compromise impartiality.

Editors are also expected to disclose and appropriately manage any potential conflict of interest.

10. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively;

  • maintain the confidentiality of the review process;

  • provide clear and academically justified comments;

  • identify relevant published work that has not been cited, where appropriate;

  • disclose potential conflicts of interest; and

  • complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

11. Final Editorial Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for decisions concerning the publication of manuscripts. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and the recommendations obtained through the peer-review process.

The journal does not guarantee publication based solely on a positive recommendation from reviewers.

12. Post-Publication Review

After publication, authors and readers may report substantive errors, ethical concerns, or other issues concerning a published article to the Editorial Team.

Reported concerns will be evaluated in accordance with the journal's publication ethics, correction, and retraction policies.

Caruban is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, confidential, and academically rigorous peer-review process.