Peer Review Process

Indonesian Journal of Educational Management and Leadership (IJEMAL) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to this journal for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer-review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility of the papers. The peer review at Indonesian Journal of Educational Management and Leadership proceeds in 9 steps with the description as follows..

  1. The primary author, also known as the corresponding submits their paper to IJEMAL using the online system facilitated by the Open Journal System (OJS). However, to accommodate authors, IJEMAL currently allows temporary submission of papers via email.
  2. The submitted paper is first assessed by the IJEMAL editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable for the Journal's focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper that passes this step will be checked by Turnitin to identify any plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.
  3. The Editor-in-Chief checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
  4. The handling editor sends invitations to two reviewers who he or she believes would be an appropriate reviewer based on expertise, the closeness of research interest, and no conflict of interest consideration. The peer-review process at the IJEMAL involves a community of experts in a narrowly defined field of educational management and leadership who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial reviews. The impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review employed in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the author's identity, conversely, the author does not know the reviewer's identity. The paper is sent to reviewers anonymously.
  5. When potential reviewers receive an invitation, they evaluate it in the context of their expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and their current availability. Based on this assessment, they decide to either accept or decline the invitation. It's important to note that in the invitation sent by the editor of IJEMAL if a potential reviewer declines to review the paper, they may also be asked for recommendations of an alternative reviewer.
  6. The reviewers dedicated time to thoroughly examine the paper on multiple occasions. The first reading is aimed at creating an initial assessment of the paper. If significant issues are identified during this stage, the reviewers may decide to reject the paper without further evaluation. However, if no major problems are detected, they conduct several additional readings, making detailed notes for a comprehensive point-by-point review. Subsequently, they submit the review to IJEMAL, along with a recommendation to either accept the paper, reject it, or request revisions (categorized as major or minor). The paper is then reevaluated based on this feedback.
  7. The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.
  8. The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.
  9. If accepted, the paper is sent to copy-editing. If the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers' comments and instructions.

After revision has been made, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor.

If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is considered to be accepted. The accepted papers will be published online and all are freely available as downloadable pdf files.