Peer Review Process

PAUDIA: Jurnal Penelitian dalam Bidang Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini implements a rigorous and transparent peer review process to maintain the quality, integrity, and credibility of its published articles. The journal employs a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.

All manuscript submission, editorial management, peer review, revision, and editorial decision processes are conducted through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Authors, editors, and reviewers use OJS to manage submissions, exchange review documents and comments, submit revisions, and communicate editorial decisions. This system supports the documentation, traceability, and management of the journal's editorial workflow.

1. Submission and Initial Editorial Evaluation

Authors submit their manuscripts through PAUDIA's OJS platform. The editorial team conducts an initial evaluation to assess the manuscript's suitability for the journal's Focus and Scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines, and overall suitability for further consideration.

Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation proceed to peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be rejected without external peer review. Initial evaluations and related editorial decisions are managed and recorded through OJS.

2. Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. The review process follows a double-blind procedure, under which authors and reviewers do not know one another's identities.

Review invitations, reviewer assignments, review reports, and related communications are managed through OJS. Reviewers assess the manuscript's scientific contribution, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and clarity of presentation, and provide constructive feedback to support scholarly improvement.

Authors submit their revised manuscripts and responses to reviewers' comments through OJS. The editorial team coordinates subsequent evaluation and communicates review outcomes through the same platform.

3. Assessment Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Scientific quality: The rigor and appropriateness of the research design, methodology, analysis, and interpretation.

  • Originality: The manuscript's contribution to existing knowledge.

  • Relevance: Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope.

  • Clarity of presentation: Organization, language, readability, and quality of reporting.

  • Research ethics: Compliance with applicable research and publication ethics standards.

4. Review Duration

The peer review process is generally expected to be completed within a maximum of eight weeks. The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the need for additional assessment, and the time required for manuscript revisions. The editorial team communicates relevant updates and deadlines to authors through OJS.

5. Editorial Decisions and Revisions

Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editorial assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accepted: The manuscript is accepted for publication.

  • Minor revisions: Limited revisions are required before a final publication decision.

  • Major revisions: Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

  • Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements or standards.

Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized editor in accordance with the journal's editorial policies. Decisions, revision requests, revised manuscripts, and related communications are documented and managed through OJS.

6. Final Editorial Decision and Appeals

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after considering the reviewers' recommendations, the scholarly quality of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial policies and publication ethics.

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit an appeal in accordance with PAUDIA's Complaints and Appeals Policy. Appeals should be submitted to paudia@upgris.ac.id, with clear reasons for reconsideration and supporting evidence where applicable. Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional purposes. Manuscripts and review communications must not be shared with unauthorized parties.

The identities of authors and reviewers are protected in accordance with the journal's double-blind peer review procedure. Editorial documents and review records are managed through OJS and accessed only by authorized participants in the editorial process.

8. Process Evaluation and Improvement

PAUDIA is committed to maintaining and improving the fairness, transparency, efficiency, and scholarly quality of its peer review process. The use of OJS supports the systematic management and documentation of editorial activities. Feedback from authors and reviewers may be considered to improve the journal's editorial practices.