Peer Review Process

Didanesia: Journal of Education employs a rigorous double-blind peer-review system to ensure the quality, originality, validity, and scientific contribution of every published article. In this review model, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the editorial process, ensuring fairness, objectivity, and impartial evaluation.

Each submitted manuscript is evaluated based on originality, research methodology, academic contribution, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

Peer Review Flow

1
 
 Submission
Authors submit manuscripts through the online journal submission system.
2
 
 Initial Editorial Screening
The Editorial Office evaluates manuscript completeness, formatting, scope, ethical compliance, and similarity screening.
3
 
 Similarity Check
Every manuscript is screened using Turnitin or equivalent plagiarism detection software.
4
 
 Section Editor Assignment
The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a Section Editor with relevant academic expertise.
5
 
 Double-Blind Peer Review
The manuscript is reviewed independently by at least two reviewers who evaluate originality, methodology, discussion, references, and overall scientific quality.
6
 
 Editorial Decision
Based on reviewers' recommendations, the editor issues a decision:

Accept Minor Revision Major Revision Reject
7
 
 Revision
Authors revise the manuscript and provide a detailed response to reviewers' comments.
8
 
 Final Acceptance
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after all revisions have been satisfactorily completed.
9
 Copyediting, DOI Registration & Online Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout editing, DOI registration, and online publication.

Review Criteria

  • Originality and novelty of the research.
  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
  • Research methodology and scientific rigor.
  • Quality of data analysis and interpretation.
  • Contribution to educational research and practice.
  • Organization and clarity of writing.
  • Adequacy and relevance of references.
  • Compliance with publication ethics.

Estimated Review Timeline

Editorial Screening 3–7 Days
Peer Review 2–6 Weeks
Author Revision 1–4 Weeks
Final Decision 3–7 Days
Production & Publication 1–2 Weeks

Confidentiality & Conflict of Interest

Confidentiality: Editors and reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted manuscripts.

Conflict of Interest: Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their evaluation. Individuals with conflicts of interest will not participate in the review or editorial decision-making process.

Peer Review Model
✔ Double-Blind Peer Review
✔ Minimum Two Independent Reviewers
✔ Similarity Screening (Turnitin)
✔ Objective & Confidential Review
✔ Final Decision by the Editor-in-Chief