Review Process Policy

CENTER OF EDUCATION JOURNAL (CEJou)

Peer Review | Editorial Evaluation | Publication Ethics

1. General Policy

Center of Education Journal (CEJou), published by Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Pasuruan, implements a peer-review process to ensure academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, transparency, and publication integrity.

All manuscripts are evaluated according to their relevance to the journal's aims and scope, scholarly contribution, research methods, presentation, and ethical compliance. Final decisions are made by the Editor in Chief or an authorized handling editor.

2. Peer Review Model

Blind Peer Review

CEJou applies a blind peer-review approach in which reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during the review process. Editors manage reviewer assignments and confidential communications through the journal's editorial system.

Reviewers are selected based on academic expertise, independence, and suitability for the manuscript's subject area. Additional reviewers may be invited when further assessment is necessary.

3. Review Process Stages

Stage	Description
1. Submission	Authors submit manuscripts through OJS.
2. Initial Screening	Editors evaluate scope, formatting, originality, and ethical compliance.
3. Reviewer Assignment	Qualified reviewers are invited based on relevant expertise.
4. Peer Review	Reviewers assess scientific quality and provide recommendations.
5. Revision	Authors revise manuscripts according to editorial and reviewer comments.
6. Editorial Decision	Editors determine acceptance, further revision, additional review, or rejection.
7. Production	Accepted articles proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout, and publication.

4. Initial Editorial Screening

Before external review, the editorial team assesses:

Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Originality and academic contribution.
Manuscript completeness and formatting.
Research methodology and scholarly presentation.
Similarity concerns and publication ethics.
Ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet minimum requirements may be returned for correction or declined before external peer review.

5. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers must have appropriate academic expertise and must provide independent, objective, and constructive assessments. Reviewers must declare potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartiality cannot be maintained.

Review assignments and reviewer reports are documented through the authorized editorial workflow.

6. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

The review process considers the following aspects:

Title and Abstract: clarity, accuracy, and relevance.
Originality: novelty and scholarly contribution.
Introduction: research problem, literature, and objectives.
Methodology: appropriateness and rigor of research methods.
Results: accuracy, clarity, and evidence.
Discussion: interpretation and connection with relevant studies.
Conclusion: consistency with findings and implications.
References: accuracy, relevance, and citation consistency.
Ethics: integrity, consent, and research compliance.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept Submission: suitable for publication.
Minor Revision: limited improvements required.
Major Revision: substantial improvements required.
Resubmit for Review: further assessment is necessary.
Decline Submission: does not meet publication requirements.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute final editorial decisions.

8. Revision and Author Response

Authors are expected to address reviewer comments, submit revised manuscripts, and provide clear explanations of the changes made. Authors may offer reasoned academic responses when they disagree with specific recommendations.

Revision deadlines are communicated by the editorial team. Revised manuscripts may undergo further evaluation where necessary.

9. Editorial Decision

The Editor in Chief or authorized handling editor makes the final decision based on manuscript quality, reviewer assessments, revision adequacy, and ethical considerations.

Editorial decisions must be independent of personal relationships, institutional affiliations, and financial interests.

10. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, unpublished research data, reviewer comments, and editorial communications.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal benefit. Any actual or potential conflict of interest must be disclosed to the editorial team.

11. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal concerning editorial decisions through the journal's official communication channels. Appeals are evaluated based on scholarly evidence and procedural fairness.

Allegations involving plagiarism, reviewer misconduct, peer-review manipulation, or other ethical violations are addressed through the journal's publication ethics procedures.

12. Review Documentation and Ethical Standards

CEJou maintains appropriate editorial documentation, including reviewer assignments, evaluation reports, revision records, and editorial decisions. These records support accountability and quality assurance.

The journal's review principles are informed by the ethical recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers