Peer Review Process

JESS | EDITORIAL POLICY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

Peer Review Process

JESS (Journal of Education on Social Science) is a peer-reviewed, open-access scholarly journal published by the Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Negeri Padang, Indonesia. The journal applies a blind peer-review process to support the publication of scientifically rigorous, original, and relevant research in social science education, public administration, public policy, governance, and related interdisciplinary fields.

PEER REVIEW AT A GLANCE

Review Model: Blind peer review

Number of Reviewers: At least two expert reviewers

Review Duration: Normally up to approximately three months, depending on the evaluation process

Final Decision: Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor

1. Purpose and Principles of Peer Review

Peer review is a fundamental component of the editorial quality assurance process at JESS. Its primary purpose is to evaluate the scholarly merit, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, and scientific contribution of manuscripts submitted for publication.

The review process is intended to provide authors with constructive academic feedback, support the improvement of manuscript quality, and assist the editorial team in making informed publication decisions.

The peer-review process is guided by the following principles:

Academic integrity: evaluation based on credible evidence and scholarly standards;
Editorial independence: decisions based on academic merit rather than external influence;
Fairness and impartiality: objective assessment without inappropriate discrimination;
Confidentiality: protection of unpublished manuscripts and review communications;
Transparency: clear editorial procedures and communication of decisions;
Constructive evaluation: useful and evidence-based feedback for authors;
Accountability: responsible conduct by editors, reviewers, and authors.

Peer review informs editorial decision-making but does not replace the responsibility of the journal's editors to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication.

2. Peer Review Model

JESS applies a blind peer-review model in which manuscript evaluation is conducted by qualified reviewers under conditions designed to maintain the confidentiality and impartiality of the assessment process.

Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two expert reviewers with knowledge relevant to the manuscript's research topic, theoretical orientation, or methodological approach.

Reviewers are expected to conduct independent evaluations and submit recommendations supported by clear scholarly reasoning. Where assessments differ substantially, the handling editor may seek additional clarification, obtain another independent assessment, or evaluate the competing arguments before reaching an editorial decision.

3. Editorial and Peer Review Workflow

Submitted manuscripts undergo a structured editorial evaluation comprising the following principal stages.

STAGE 01

Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the official JESS Online Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Submissions should comply with the Author Guidelines, manuscript formatting requirements, authorship declarations, and relevant publication ethics policies.

STAGE 02

Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, completeness, academic presentation, methodological appropriateness, and compliance with submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet essential requirements may be returned for correction or rejected before external peer review.

STAGE 03

Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts considered suitable for review are assigned to at least two qualified expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected with regard to disciplinary expertise, methodological competence, independence, availability, and potential conflicts of interest.

STAGE 04

Independent Peer Review

Reviewers critically assess the manuscript's theoretical foundations, research design, data quality, analytical procedures, findings, conclusions, and scholarly contribution. Review reports should identify both strengths and weaknesses and provide actionable recommendations.

STAGE 05

Editorial Assessment and Decision

The handling editor evaluates reviewer recommendations and the substantive issues identified during review. An editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author. Review recommendations inform the decision but do not automatically determine it.

STAGE 06

Author Revision

When revision is requested, the authors prepare a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how the comments have been addressed. Any recommendation not adopted should be supported by a clear scholarly justification.

STAGE 07

Reassessment and Final Editorial Decision

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor or returned to reviewers for further evaluation. Additional review rounds may be requested when important scientific concerns remain unresolved. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor.

STAGE 08

Copyediting, Production, and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to editorial production, which may include copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, metadata verification, and final publication checks. Acceptance does not exempt a manuscript from necessary corrections relating to accuracy, presentation, or publication ethics.

4. Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

JESS recognizes that the quality of peer review depends on the expertise, independence, professionalism, and ethical conduct of reviewers.

Reviewers should be selected based on:

Relevant academic expertise and research experience;
Knowledge of the manuscript's subject area and theoretical framework;
Competence in the research methods applied;
Ability to provide independent and critical scholarly evaluation;
Absence of conflicts of interest that would compromise impartiality;
Commitment to confidentiality and professional review conduct;
Availability to complete the evaluation within an appropriate period.

Reviewers may be drawn from the journal's reviewer network or from other qualified scholars as appropriate. Editors should avoid assigning manuscripts to reviewers whose close professional, personal, financial, or institutional relationships could compromise the independence of the review.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts using relevant scholarly criteria rather than personal preferences or unsupported judgments.

Assessment Dimension	Evaluation Focus
Originality	Novelty, research contribution, and distinction from existing literature.
Relevance	Alignment with the journal's aims, scope, and disciplinary orientation.
Research Problem	Clarity of the research question, objectives, rationale, and scholarly significance.
Theoretical Foundation	Engagement with relevant theories, concepts, and previous studies.
Methodological Rigor	Appropriateness, transparency, and validity of the research design and procedures.
Data and Analysis	Evidence quality, analytical accuracy, methodological consistency, and interpretive depth.
Results and Discussion	Clarity of findings, critical interpretation, and engagement with relevant scholarship.
Conclusions	Consistency with the findings and appropriately bounded implications.
Research Ethics	Compliance with applicable ethical requirements, consent, and research integrity principles.
Academic Presentation	Organization, clarity, referencing, and overall manuscript quality.

Evaluation criteria should be applied in a manner appropriate to the manuscript type. Empirical, conceptual, qualitative, quantitative, and literature-review manuscripts may require different methodological considerations while remaining subject to equivalent standards of scholarly rigor.

6. Editorial Decision Categories

Following the editorial evaluation and peer-review process, the journal may communicate one of the following decisions.

6.1. Accept

The manuscript is considered academically suitable for publication, subject to any remaining technical, editorial, or production requirements.

6.2. Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited improvements that do not fundamentally alter its research design, principal analysis, or core conclusions. The revised manuscript may be reassessed by the editor or relevant reviewers.

6.3. Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial improvements to its theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, interpretation, structure, or scientific contribution. Additional peer review may be necessary after revision.

6.4. Reject

The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication because of fundamental concerns relating to scope, originality, methodological quality, scholarly contribution, publication ethics, or other significant academic deficiencies.

A recommendation for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance. Final editorial decisions depend on the adequacy of the authors' responses, the quality of the revised manuscript, and the resolution of material scholarly concerns.

7. Author Revision and Response to Reviewers

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to respond carefully and professionally to the issues raised by reviewers and editors.

A revised submission should normally include:

A revised manuscript incorporating the necessary improvements;
A point-by-point response addressing reviewer and editor comments;
Clear identification of important modifications made to the manuscript;
Scholarly explanations for recommendations not adopted;
Additional analyses, references, or documentation where required.

Authors must not modify research data, fabricate additional results, or introduce unsupported claims merely to satisfy reviewer comments. Any substantial changes to the research design, analysis, or conclusions should be transparently explained.

The editorial team may request further revision or additional review when the submitted response does not adequately resolve substantive concerns. Revision deadlines should be communicated through the editorial correspondence associated with the manuscript.

8. Review Duration and Processing Time

The peer-review process at JESS can take up to approximately three months. The actual processing time may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, and the time required to address substantive editorial concerns.

INDICATIVE REVIEW PERIOD

Up to Approximately 3 Months

The stated period is indicative and does not constitute a guaranteed decision or acceptance deadline.

The journal endeavors to communicate editorial progress responsibly. Unexpected delays may occur when reviewers decline invitations, further expertise is required, or authors need additional time to complete revisions.

Editorial rigor and research integrity take precedence over accelerated processing. Payment of publication-related fees, where applicable, must not influence reviewer selection, scientific evaluation, or editorial decisions.

9. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to conduct manuscript evaluation in accordance with recognized principles of responsible peer review, including the ethical guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers are expected to:

Accept assignments only when they possess appropriate expertise and sufficient time;
Provide objective evaluations supported by scholarly reasoning;
Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and review correspondence;
Declare actual or potential conflicts of interest promptly;
Avoid discriminatory, hostile, or personally inappropriate comments;
Identify material methodological weaknesses and unsupported conclusions;
Inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or other ethical concerns;
Avoid using unpublished research information for personal or professional advantage;
Submit reviews within agreed deadlines or communicate anticipated delays.

Reviewers should not independently contact manuscript authors or conduct investigations into suspected misconduct without appropriate authorization from the editorial team.

10. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

Manuscripts under review are confidential scholarly documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, unpublished data, review reports, or privileged editorial correspondence to unauthorized parties.

Reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could reasonably affect the independence of their assessment. Potential conflicts may arise from financial interests, close personal relationships, academic collaboration, professional competition, or institutional relationships.

A reviewer who identifies a relevant conflict of interest should inform the handling editor before proceeding with the evaluation. The editor will determine whether reassignment or other safeguards are appropriate.

Editors must similarly recuse themselves from decisions involving manuscripts where their own relationships or interests could compromise editorial impartiality.

11. Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review may contain unpublished research findings, sensitive information, confidential data, or intellectual property belonging to the authors.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, supplementary files, or identifiable review correspondence to external generative artificial intelligence platforms or other third-party services without explicit authorization from the editorial office and appropriate safeguards for confidentiality and data protection.

Where AI-assisted tools are permitted, their use must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, integrity, fairness, and confidentiality of their assessments.

AI-generated assessments, fabricated citations, unverified statements, or misleading representations of manuscript evaluation are inconsistent with responsible peer-review practice.

12. Editorial Independence and Final Decision-Making

The Editor-in-Chief and designated editors are responsible for making editorial decisions based on manuscript quality, review evidence, journal relevance, and publication ethics.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than binding. Editors may consider the quality and reasoning of reviewers' assessments, request additional expertise, and evaluate whether substantive concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.

Editorial decisions must not be determined by financial arrangements, author fees, institutional authority, personal influence, or other considerations unrelated to scholarly merit.

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by editors or Editorial Board members must be handled through an independent editorial arrangement that prevents the involved individual from influencing reviewer selection or the final decision.

13. Appeals, Complaints, and Review Concerns

Authors may raise concerns regarding editorial procedures, potential factual misunderstandings, significant procedural irregularities, or suspected conflicts of interest during manuscript evaluation.

Requests for reconsideration should be submitted in writing to the editorial office, clearly identifying the manuscript and providing a reasoned explanation supported by relevant evidence.

Disagreement with a reviewer's academic opinion does not, by itself, establish grounds for overturning an editorial decision. Appeals should focus on demonstrable errors, material new information, or significant procedural concerns.

Where a complaint involves the editor responsible for the original decision, the matter should be referred to another appropriately qualified and independent individual within the journal's governance arrangements.

Requests for reconsideration do not guarantee acceptance, renewed peer review, or reversal of a previous decision.

14. Documentation and Editorial Accountability

The journal recognizes the importance of maintaining reliable records of manuscript submission, reviewer assignments, editorial communications, revision requests, and publication decisions.

Editorial records should be retained and accessed according to institutional policies, applicable confidentiality requirements, and the operational capabilities of the journal's manuscript management system.

Documentation of the review process supports editorial accountability, the investigation of legitimate complaints, continuous improvement of review quality, and the integrity of the published scholarly record.

15. Commitment to Responsible Peer Review

JESS is committed to promoting a fair, rigorous, transparent, and responsible peer-review process that strengthens the quality of scholarly publications and supports the advancement of knowledge in education and the social sciences.

The journal encourages constructive engagement among authors, reviewers, and editors, while recognizing that the ultimate objective of peer review is not merely manuscript acceptance or rejection, but the advancement of credible, reliable, and ethically responsible scientific knowledge.

16. Supporting Standards and Related Policies

This policy is informed by recognized principles of responsible scholarly peer review and should be read alongside the journal's applicable editorial and publication ethics policies.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

COPE.
Guidance for Editors on Editing Peer Reviews.
https://doi.org/10.24318/AoZQlusn

JESS Author Guidelines.
View Author Guidelines

JESS Publication Ethics.
View Publication Ethics

JESS Reviewers.
View Reviewer Board

Editorial Inquiries

Questions concerning manuscript review, editorial decisions, or peer-review procedures should be addressed through the journal's official editorial communication channels.

Contact the Editorial Office →

JESS (Journal of Education on Social Science)

Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Negeri Padang, Indonesia

Print ISSN: 2622-0741 | Electronic ISSN: 2550-0147