Review Process

Review and Revision Process

Review Process: Anonymous Reviewer / Disclosed Author

Primary: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar applies a structured peer-review process intended to assess the scholarly quality, methodological soundness, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance of every manuscript considered for publication. Manuscripts must fall within the journal’s Focus and Scope and comply with the current Author Guidelines before they can proceed to external peer review.

Submission does not imply acceptance for review or publication. Each manuscript is first examined by the Editorial Team to determine whether it is sufficiently developed for scholarly evaluation. The journal also assesses originality using plagiarism-detection software. Authors are therefore expected to ensure that quotations, paraphrases, data, figures, tables, and ideas derived from other sources are appropriately acknowledged and cited.

The journal operates an Anonymous Reviewer / Disclosed Author peer-review model, commonly referred to as single-blind peer review. Under this model, the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors, while reviewers may see the authors’ names and affiliations.

Official Communication

All formal correspondence concerning manuscript submission, editorial screening, peer review, revision, editorial decisions, and subsequent publication procedures is communicated to the corresponding author by the Editor, Editor in Chief, or Editorial Office through the journal’s official email addresses:

[email protected]
[email protected]

Authors are responsible for monitoring the email address registered in the submission system throughout the editorial process. When an expected notification is not visible in the inbox, the corresponding author should also check the spam/junk folder before contacting the Editorial Office.

1. Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system. Before completing a submission, the corresponding author should ensure that the manuscript and its supporting information are accurate, complete, and consistent with the Author Guidelines.

A complete submission should include, where applicable:

[a] The manuscript prepared according to the journal template and Author Guidelines;
[b] Complete and accurate author metadata, including names, affiliations, and contact information;
[c] Supplementary materials required to support the manuscript;
[d] Statements concerning competing interests, data availability, ethical approval, informed consent, acknowledgments, and author contributions, where applicable;
[e] Accurate and complete references and citations; and
[f] Any declaration required under the journal’s policies, including disclosure concerning the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies where applicable.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all listed authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript and have agreed to its submission to Primary: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar.

Submitting a manuscript also represents an affirmation that the work has not been published previously and is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.

2. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Evaluation)

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment before external peer review. This stage is intended to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further scholarly evaluation rather than to provide a complete peer-review judgment.

The Editor or Editorial Team examines the manuscript with particular attention to the following matters:

2.1 Alignment with the Focus and Scope

The manuscript must address a subject that falls within the scholarly coverage of Primary: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar, particularly research and scholarly reviews relating to elementary education, teaching and learning, teacher education, curriculum, educational assessment, instructional innovation, educational technology, and other fields identified in the journal’s Focus and Scope.

A manuscript may be declined at this stage when its principal research problem, population, disciplinary orientation, or contribution falls outside the journal’s scope.

2.2 Compliance with the Author Guidelines

Editors assess whether the manuscript has been prepared according to the journal’s required structure and technical conventions. Particular attention may be given to the completeness of the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, literature review where applicable, method, results, discussion, conclusion and implications, limitations where applicable, declarations, and references.

The Editorial Team may also examine the clarity of tables and figures, consistency between citations and the reference list, adherence to the required reference style, and completeness of statements required by journal policy.

Minor technical deficiencies may lead to the manuscript being returned to the author for correction before the editorial assessment continues.

2.3 Preliminary Scholarly Quality

The initial screening also considers whether the manuscript presents a clear academic problem, a defensible scholarly rationale, an appropriate research or review design, and a contribution that warrants external evaluation.

Manuscripts that remain substantially underdeveloped—for example, those with unclear research questions, inadequate methodological information, unsupported arguments, or conclusions that cannot reasonably be related to the reported evidence—may be declined without external review.

2.4 Originality, Research Integrity, and Ethical Compliance

Editors conduct an originality assessment and may use plagiarism-detection software to identify unattributed textual overlap or other indications requiring closer examination.

Where research involves human participants, animals, sensitive information, or other circumstances requiring ethical safeguards, the manuscript must provide the relevant ethical information and declarations in accordance with applicable regulations and journal policy.

Potential concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate or concurrent submission, inappropriate authorship, data integrity, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of research misconduct may be examined before the manuscript proceeds further.

2.5 Possible Outcomes of Initial Screening

Following desk evaluation, a manuscript may:

[a] Proceed to external peer review;
[b] Be returned to the author for technical or editorial correction before peer review; or
[c] Be declined at the desk-review stage when it does not meet the journal’s scope, scholarly, methodological, ethical, originality, or submission requirements.

A manuscript that passes initial screening has not yet been accepted for publication. It has only been determined to be sufficiently suitable for external scholarly assessment.

3. Peer Review Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two peer reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject, methodological approach, or disciplinary area of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection is undertaken by the Editor or Editorial Team. Reviewers should have sufficient academic competence to assess the work independently and should not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of their evaluation.

Under the journal’s Anonymous Reviewer / Disclosed Author policy:

[a] Reviewers remain anonymous to the authors;
[b] Authors’ identities and affiliations may be disclosed to reviewers;
[c] Manuscripts and supporting materials received for review are treated as confidential scholarly documents; and
[d] Reviewers are expected to declare any conflict of interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment.

When an invited reviewer is unable to evaluate the manuscript because of insufficient expertise, a conflict of interest, or an inability to complete the review appropriately, another qualified reviewer may be invited.

4. Peer Review Using the Journal Review Form

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using the journal’s Review Form and provide comments intended both to assist editorial decision-making and, where revision is appropriate, to help authors strengthen the manuscript.

Review is based on scholarly reasoning rather than personal preference. Comments should therefore be sufficiently clear, specific, and supported by academic arguments so that both editors and authors can understand the basis of the reviewer’s assessment.

The review normally addresses, but is not limited to, the following dimensions:

4.1 Originality and Contribution

Reviewers consider whether the manuscript addresses a relevant scholarly problem, provides an identifiable contribution to existing knowledge, and demonstrates an adequate relationship between the research problem and previous scholarship.

4.2 Clarity and Coherence of Argumentation

The manuscript should present a coherent line of reasoning. Research questions, objectives, theoretical arguments, methods, findings, discussion, and conclusions should be logically connected rather than presented as isolated components.

4.3 Methodological and Analytical Rigor

Reviewers assess whether the research design, participants or data sources, instruments, procedures, analytical methods, and reporting practices are appropriate for the stated research objectives.

For quantitative studies, the appropriateness and interpretation of statistical procedures may be examined. For qualitative research, attention may be directed to the transparency of data collection, analytical procedures, credibility, and interpretation. Review studies are assessed according to the methodological requirements appropriate to their design.

4.4 Scholarly Relevance and Contribution to the Journal

Reviewers consider the value of the manuscript for scholarship and practice within the areas covered by the journal. Evaluation concerns the defensibility and usefulness of the contribution rather than simply the popularity of the topic.

4.5 Results, Discussion, and Conclusions

Reported findings must be presented accurately and interpreted without extending claims beyond the evidence available.

The discussion should explain the meaning of the findings, engage critically with relevant literature, and clarify the contribution or implications of the study. Conclusions should arise from the research questions, analytical results, and discussion rather than introduce claims that were not examined in the study.

4.6 References and Citation Practice

References should be relevant to the research problem and sufficiently support the theoretical, methodological, and interpretive arguments of the manuscript. Reviewers may identify important literature that has been overlooked or draw attention to citations that are inaccurate, inappropriate, excessive, or insufficient.

4.7 Ethical and Research-Integrity Considerations

Where applicable, reviewers may examine ethical approval, informed consent, participant protection, confidentiality, competing interests, data reporting, authorship-related matters, or other research-integrity issues relevant to the manuscript.

5. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decision

After completing their evaluation, reviewers provide one of the recommendations available in the journal’s editorial system:

[a] Accept Submission

The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantive revision. Minor editorial or production corrections may still be required before publication.

[b] Revision Required

The manuscript has scholarly potential but requires revision before an editorial decision can be finalized. Requested changes may concern conceptual explanation, methodology, analysis, interpretation, organization, references, language, reporting, or other aspects identified during review.

A manuscript receiving this recommendation is not yet accepted.

[c] Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires substantial revision affecting matters that warrant another round of scholarly evaluation. Once the revised version is submitted, it will ordinarily be returned to reviewers or otherwise subjected to further peer review at the Editor’s discretion.

[d] Resubmit Elsewhere

The reviewers or Editors consider that the manuscript may be more appropriately developed for another journal, disciplinary audience, or publication venue.

[e] Decline Submission

The manuscript is not considered suitable for further consideration by the journal in its present submission.

Reviewer recommendations constitute scholarly advice to the Editors; they do not operate as a numerical vote. The Editor or Editor in Chief makes the editorial decision after considering the review reports, the manuscript itself, the journal’s editorial standards, ethical requirements, and any other information relevant to the evaluation.

When reviewer recommendations differ, the Editor may assess the competing arguments, request clarification, consult an additional reviewer, or undertake further editorial evaluation before reaching a decision.

The corresponding author receives an editorial decision letter accompanied by reviewer and/or editorial comments that require attention.

6. Revision Process

Revision is a substantive stage of scholarly evaluation, not merely a correction of language or formatting. Authors are expected to examine every editorial and reviewer comment carefully, determine what changes are required, and demonstrate transparently how each issue has been addressed.

A request for revision does not constitute acceptance for publication.

6.1 Reading and Evaluating the Decision Letter

Before modifying the manuscript, authors should review the complete decision letter and all reviewer reports. Comments should be considered in relation to the manuscript as a whole rather than addressed as isolated editing instructions.

The author should identify:

[a] Comments requiring substantive changes to theory, method, analysis, results, or discussion;
[b] Requests for clarification or additional explanation;
[c] Corrections concerning terminology, references, tables, figures, or presentation;
[d] Editorial or formatting requirements; and
[e] Comments for which the author believes an alternative scholarly response is necessary.

When several reviewers raise related concerns, authors should revise the manuscript consistently across all relevant sections rather than respond separately in ways that create contradictions.

6.2 Preparing the Revised Manuscript

The revised manuscript should incorporate all changes that the authors agree are necessary on the basis of the reviewer and editorial comments.

Revision may require changes to one or more of the following:

  • research background or problem formulation;

  • theoretical framework or literature review;

  • research questions or objectives;

  • description of participants, data, instruments, or procedures;

  • methodological justification;

  • analytical procedures;

  • presentation of results;

  • interpretation and discussion;

  • comparison with previous studies;

  • conclusions and implications;

  • limitations;

  • ethical declarations;

  • data-availability information;

  • figures and tables;

  • citations and references;

  • terminology and academic English; or

  • other elements identified by the Editors or reviewers.

Changes to one section should be checked against the entire manuscript. For example, a revised research objective may require corresponding changes to the abstract, method, results, discussion, conclusion, and implications. Authors should therefore evaluate internal consistency after completing the revision.

Revisions must not introduce new claims that are unsupported by the study or conceal methodological limitations identified during peer review.

6.3 Point-by-Point Response to Reviewers

A revised manuscript must be accompanied by a Response to Reviewers document addressing the comments systematically and point by point.

Each reviewer or editorial comment should be reproduced or clearly identified, followed immediately by the authors’ response.

A response should normally contain three elements:

Comment:
The reviewer’s or Editor’s concern or recommendation.

Author Response:
A concise explanation of how the authors addressed the comment, including the scholarly reasoning underlying the revision where necessary.

Revision Made:
A clear indication of what was changed and where the revision can be found in the revised manuscript.

Responses such as “Done,” “Corrected,” “Revised as suggested,” or “Thank you” are generally insufficient when the comment concerns a substantive scholarly issue. The response should allow the Editor and reviewer to determine what has changed without having to reconstruct the revision independently.

6.4 Responding to Comments the Authors Do Not Fully Accept

Authors are not required to accept a reviewer suggestion when there is a defensible scholarly reason not to do so. Peer review is an academic evaluation rather than an instruction to adopt every recommendation mechanically.

When authors disagree with a comment, however, the disagreement should be expressed respectfully and supported by clear reasoning, relevant evidence, methodological considerations, or appropriate references.

The response should explain:

[a] Which recommendation is not being adopted;
[b] Why implementing it would be inappropriate, unnecessary, methodologically problematic, or inconsistent with the study; and
[c] Whether an alternative revision has been made to resolve the underlying concern.

Simply stating that the authors disagree, without an academic justification, does not adequately address a reviewer’s comment.

6.5 Accuracy and Integrity During Revision

Revision must preserve the integrity of the research record. Authors should not alter, omit, manipulate, or selectively reinterpret data merely to satisfy a reviewer’s expectations.

When additional analyses are requested, authors should report them transparently and explain their relationship to the original research design. If a requested analysis cannot appropriately be performed, the response should state the reason.

Authors should also verify that revisions have not created inconsistencies between:

  • the abstract and main text;

  • research objectives and reported findings;

  • methods and results;

  • tables, figures, and narrative reporting;

  • numerical values presented in different sections;

  • in-text citations and reference entries; and

  • conclusions and the evidence upon which they are based.

Any substantive error identified during revision should be corrected transparently.

6.6 Technical, Ethical, and Reporting Compliance

Before resubmission, authors should review the revised manuscript against the current Author Guidelines and journal policies.

Particular attention should be directed to:

[a] The required structure of the manuscript;
[b] Academic English and clarity of presentation;
[c] Accuracy and completeness of references;
[d] Numbering, labeling, and citation of tables and figures;
[e] Authorship and author-contribution statements;
[f] Declaration of competing interests;
[g] Data Availability Statement;
[h] Ethical Declaration and informed-consent information where applicable;
[i] Acknowledgment and funding information where applicable; and
[j] Declaration concerning the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies where required by journal policy.

The revised manuscript remains subject to the journal’s originality, publication-ethics, and research-integrity requirements.

6.7 Resubmission of the Revision

Authors must submit the revised manuscript and the point-by-point Response to Reviewers according to the instructions provided by the Editorial Office and within the revision period specified in the editorial decision.

Authors should ensure that the files uploaded for revision are the correct and most recent versions. Where supplementary files, declarations, figures, tables, or other materials have been affected by the revision, updated versions should also be supplied when required.

A revised manuscript is considered a continuation of the same editorial evaluation. Authors should therefore maintain consistency in manuscript information and clearly identify any substantive changes that could affect interpretation of the work.

7. Editorial Assessment and Re-Review

After a revised manuscript has been received, the Editor examines both the manuscript and the authors’ response document to determine whether the comments raised during the previous evaluation have been adequately addressed.

The next stage depends on the nature of the earlier decision and the extent of the revisions.

7.1 Revision Required

When the decision is Revision Required, the Editor may assess the revision directly if the requested changes can be evaluated editorially.

If substantive scholarly questions remain, the Editor may seek further evaluation before making a subsequent decision.

7.2 Resubmit for Review

When the decision is Resubmit for Review, the revised manuscript will typically undergo another round of peer review.

Reviewers may be asked to assess:

[a] Whether their previous concerns have been addressed;
[b] Whether the revisions are methodologically and conceptually adequate;
[c] Whether new changes have introduced additional problems;
[d] Whether the authors’ explanations are academically defensible; and
[e] Whether the revised manuscript now satisfies the standards required for publication.

Re-review should focus primarily on the issues relevant to the revised manuscript. Reviewers may nevertheless identify additional concerns when these arise directly from new material or changes introduced during revision.

7.3 Additional Revision Cycles

A manuscript may require more than one revision cycle. Further revision may be requested when substantive concerns remain unresolved or when changes made in response to earlier reviews require additional clarification.

Participation in a revision cycle does not guarantee eventual acceptance. Each revised version is assessed on its scholarly quality and on the adequacy with which previous concerns have been resolved.

8. Final Editorial Decision

Once the required review and revision stages have been completed, the Editors determine the final disposition of the manuscript.

The decision takes into account:

[a] The reviewers’ assessments and recommendations;
[b] The authors’ responses to editorial and reviewer comments;
[c] The quality and completeness of the revisions;
[d] Methodological and analytical rigor;
[e] Coherence between evidence, interpretation, and conclusions;
[f] Compliance with the journal’s Focus and Scope and Author Guidelines;
[g] Ethical and research-integrity requirements; and
[h] The journal’s editorial standards.

Acceptance is based on the revised manuscript as a whole rather than on the completion of individual reviewer requests alone.

The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the journal’s official communication channels.

9. Production and Publication Scheduling

A manuscript that has received formal acceptance proceeds from scholarly evaluation to the production stage.

Post-acceptance processing may include:

[a] Copyediting;
[b] Language and content editing where required;
[c] Verification of references and publication metadata;
[d] Layout preparation;
[e] Author proofreading;
[f] Final editorial corrections; and
[g] Preparation of the article for online publication.

Authors are expected to cooperate with editorial queries arising during production and to review proofs carefully. Proofreading is intended primarily to identify production errors, typographical problems, formatting inconsistencies, and other matters requiring final correction. It is not ordinarily intended to reopen the peer-review process or introduce extensive changes to an accepted manuscript.

Publication order and issue assignment are determined by the Editor in Chief, taking into account:

[a] The sequence of manuscript acceptance dates;
[b] Geographical distribution of authors; and
[c] Thematic considerations or special issues, where applicable.

Formal acceptance therefore does not automatically determine the precise sequence in which an article will appear within an issue.

Review Timeline

The Editorial Team seeks to communicate the outcome of peer review as promptly as practicable. Authors may normally expect initial review results within approximately 1–2 months.

In some cases, the complete review process may require up to 3 months, particularly when the availability of suitable reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, additional reviewer invitations, or one or more revision cycles extend the evaluation period.

These periods should be understood as indicative rather than guaranteed deadlines. The scholarly quality of peer review takes precedence over completing evaluation within an artificially shortened period.

Authors should also distinguish between the journal’s review period and the time required for author revision. When a revision is requested, the author should follow the deadline stated in the editorial decision letter.

Notifications concerning review progress, revision requests, and editorial decisions are sent through the journal’s official communication channels. Authors who do not receive an expected message in their inbox should check the spam/junk folder.

Criteria for Publication

Primary: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar does not use peer review merely to rank manuscripts according to a subjective perception of prestige or topical importance. The principal purpose of review is to determine whether a manuscript is sufficiently rigorous, transparent, ethically responsible, and academically defensible to become part of the published scholarly record within the journal’s field.

A manuscript may be accepted for publication when it satisfies the following editorial criteria:

[a] Original Scholarly Work

The manuscript reports original research or an eligible scholarly review relevant to the journal’s Focus and Scope. The research problem and contribution must be identifiable and supported by an appropriate engagement with existing scholarship.

[b] No Prior or Concurrent Publication

The results or manuscript have not been published elsewhere in a form that constitutes duplicate publication, and the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.

[c] Technical and Methodological Rigor

Research procedures, experiments, measurements, statistical analyses, qualitative analyses, review procedures, or other methodological components are conducted to an appropriate scholarly standard and reported with enough detail to permit critical evaluation of the work.

[d] Evidence-Supported Conclusions

Conclusions must arise from the reported findings and analysis. Claims should remain proportionate to the evidence and should not extend beyond what can reasonably be supported by the research design and data.

[e] Clarity and Academic English

The manuscript should be intelligible, logically organized, and written in appropriate academic English. Language should communicate the research accurately without obscuring methodological procedures, results, arguments, or limitations.

[f] Research Ethics and Integrity

The research must comply with applicable standards governing research ethics, participant protection, informed consent, originality, authorship, competing interests, data integrity, and responsible scholarly conduct.

[g] Reporting and Data-Availability Standards

The manuscript should follow reporting practices appropriate to its research design and disciplinary community. Information concerning access to research data should be provided in accordance with the journal’s Data Availability requirements and any ethical, legal, or confidentiality restrictions applicable to the study.

Meeting these criteria does not remove the need for editorial judgment. The Editor and Editor in Chief retain responsibility for determining whether a manuscript has completed the journal’s peer-review and editorial requirements and is suitable for publication in Primary: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar.