Peer Review Process

Tunjuk Ajar: Journal of Education and Culture maintains a stringent peer review procedure to guarantee the excellence and validity of its published research. All manuscripts undergo double anonymous (double-blind) peer review by at least two independent reviewers, ensuring that the identities of authors and reviewers remain concealed from one another throughout the process. Experts within the appropriate fields undertake the review, judging submissions on their scientific significance, innovation, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal's focus on education and culture.

The criteria used to qualify or reject a manuscript are stated openly on this page and in the Reviewer Guidelines, so that authors know in advance the standards against which their work will be judged.

The journal does not publish special issues or guest-edited content. Every submission, without exception, follows the process described below.

1. Preliminary Assessment (Desk Review)

Every manuscript is examined by the editorial team before it enters peer review. The assessment verifies:

• Alignment with the journal's focus and scope
• Compliance with the author guidelines and the official article template
• Originality and the presence of a clearly stated research problem
• Proper anonymization, that is, removal of author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding details, and self-identifying citations
• Completeness of the reference list and the accuracy of its entries

Grounds for desk rejection. A manuscript is rejected before peer review when any of the following applies:

• The subject falls outside the focus and scope of the journal
• The manuscript is under review at, or has already been published by, another journal
• Plagiarism is detected, or any unattributed text is found, in accordance with the Plagiarism Policy
• Data or references are fabricated, or citations cannot be verified
• The language is unclear to the point that the substance cannot be assessed
• Authorship is disputed, or required ethical approval for research involving human participants is absent

Manuscripts with correctable formatting or template problems are returned to the author for correction and resubmission rather than rejected. Successfully vetted manuscripts proceed to peer review. The desk review is completed within 2 weeks of submission.

2. Similarity Screening

All manuscripts are screened with Turnitin. Similarity is calculated excluding the bibliography and properly marked quotations. The thresholds below are applied consistently with the Plagiarism Policy:

• Below 15%: acceptable, provided all sources are properly cited
• 15% to 25%: the editor examines the matched passages and requests written justification or revision from the author before the manuscript proceeds
• Above 25%: the manuscript is rejected, or returned for major revision when the overlap is confined to standard methodological description
• Any unattributed text, at any percentage: immediate rejection

The percentage is an indicator, not a verdict on its own. The editor also considers where the overlap occurs and whether the citation is adequate. Screening is repeated on the final version before publication.

3. Selection of Reviewers

• The editorial board identifies two independent reviewers with expertise in the manuscript's subject area.
• Reviewers are from different institutions than the authors and have no potential conflicts of interest.
• Invited reviewers are asked to declare any conflict of interest and to decline the invitation where one exists, or where they lack the relevant expertise or the time to complete the review.
• A reviewer who does not respond to an invitation within 1 week, or who misses the agreed deadline without notice, is replaced.
• Target time for appointing reviewers: within 4 weeks of passing preliminary assessment.

4. Evaluation Process

Reviewers assess originality, scientific contribution, methodology, relevance to education and culture, and adherence to academic standards. The detailed criteria and the assessment weighting are published in the Reviewer Guidelines.

Each reviewer submits one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: the manuscript meets all criteria; no substantive change is required.
• Minor Revisions: the findings and the method are sound; the remaining issues concern clarity, structure, referencing, or presentation, and can be settled without re-review.
• Major Revisions: the study is worth pursuing, but the argument, the analysis, or the engagement with literature must be reworked; the revised version is returned to the reviewers.
• Reject: the manuscript presents no discernible novelty, the method cannot support the claims made, the conclusions do not follow from the reported data, or the work required would amount to a new study.

Evaluation is completed within 3 weeks (21 days) after the reviewer agrees to review.

5. Handling of Disagreements Between Reviewers

• If the two reviewers provide conflicting recommendations (for example, one accepts and the other rejects), the Editor-in-Chief appoints a third independent reviewer.
• The third reviewer evaluates the manuscript anonymously, without knowledge of the earlier recommendations. The final decision follows the majority opinion of the three reviewers.
• If the two initial reviewers agree, no third reviewer is appointed.
• Two Reject recommendations result in rejection, and the decision is final for that version of the manuscript.

6. Editorial Decision

• The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewer feedback and compliance with publication standards.
• The decision and the anonymized reviewer comments are communicated to the authors.
• Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Where the editor departs from them, the reasons are recorded and explained to the author.
• Authors who consider a decision to have been reached in error may submit an appeal under the Appeals and Complaints policy.
• Target for first decision: within 8 weeks of submission.

7. Revision Stage

• Authors must incorporate suggested changes, submit a revised version with highlighted alterations, and include a response letter addressing each comment. The revised manuscript must remain anonymized.
• Deadlines: Minor Revisions 2 weeks, Major Revisions 4 weeks. Manuscripts returned after the deadline without prior notice are treated as new submissions.
• Manuscripts with major revisions are re-evaluated by the original reviewers, or by the third reviewer where one was involved, within 3 weeks.
• Limit on revision rounds: a manuscript passes through at most two rounds of revision. A manuscript that still fails to address the substantive comments after the second round is rejected.

8. Final Steps to Publication

• Accepted manuscripts must be submitted in final form for copyediting (language, grammar, consistency), formatting, and author proofreading.
• A DOI is registered for every published article, and the article metadata is deposited with Crossref.
• Target time from acceptance to publication: within 8 weeks.

Target Timelines Summary

These are target times rather than guarantees. Manuscripts that require major revision or a third reviewer take longer, and authors are notified whenever a decision is delayed beyond the target.

Peer Review Policy Statements

• The journal does not accept manuscripts that have been published or are under review elsewhere.
• Any form of plagiarism is strictly prohibited. Manuscripts found with plagiarized content are rejected.
• All manuscripts are screened with plagiarism detection software.
• Reviewer and author identities remain confidential throughout the process, in line with the journal's double anonymous policy.
• Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, cite, or make any use of the content of a manuscript under review, and must not upload any part of it to generative artificial intelligence tools, in accordance with the Generative AI Policy.
• Reviewer assessments must be the reviewer's own work. Generative artificial intelligence may not be used to produce a review report.
• Allegations of misconduct raised during review are handled under the Publication Ethics policy, and corrections or retractions after publication follow the Retraction and Corrections policy.
• The criteria for qualification and rejection stated above apply to every submission without exception, including submissions from members of the editorial board, which are handled by an editor who has no involvement in the work and who has no access to the identity of the reviewers assigned.

With a rigorous peer review process, Tunjuk Ajar: Journal of Education and Culture is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity, quality, and transparency in academic publishing.