Jurnal Ekonomi dan Pendidikan (JEP) applies a peer review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, and academic contribution of submitted manuscripts. The process aims to ensure that published articles meet appropriate scholarly and ethical standards. Reviewers provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts, while the editorial team is responsible for making publication decisions.

1. Review Principles

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts and reviewer comments are treated as confidential documents.
• Objectivity: Reviews must be fair, evidence-based, and focused on scholarly quality.
• Independence: Editorial decisions are based on manuscript quality, relevance to the journal's focus and scope, and reviewer recommendations.
• Ethical conduct: Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and maintain publication ethics.

2. Review Stages

Step 1 – Submission and Initial Screening. The editorial team checks whether the manuscript fits the journal's focus and scope, follows the author guidelines, meets basic academic standards, and complies with publication ethics requirements.

Step 2 – Reviewer Assignment. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers must be independent and free from conflicts of interest.

Step 3 – Peer Review. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's originality, theoretical foundation, research methods, results, discussion, conclusions, references, and contribution to the field. They provide comments and recommendations to the editor.

Step 4 – Editorial Decision. Based on the reviewers' reports and editorial assessment, the editor communicates the decision to the author. The manuscript may be accepted, require minor revisions, require major revisions, or be rejected.

Step 5 – Revision and Final Decision. Authors are required to address reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript when revisions are requested. The editor may send the revised manuscript back to the reviewers before making a final decision.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the relevance and originality of the topic, clarity of research objectives, adequacy of the literature review and theoretical framework, appropriateness of the research methods, quality of data analysis, validity of the findings, discussion of implications and limitations, clarity of writing, and compliance with publication ethics.

4. Editorial Decisions

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any necessary editorial adjustments.
• Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required before acceptance can be considered.
• Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required, and further review may be necessary.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements.

5. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors are responsible for ensuring a fair, objective, and confidential review process and for making editorial decisions based on scholarly merit. Reviewers must provide timely, constructive, and unbiased assessments, maintain confidentiality, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and report any suspected ethical concerns to the editor.

6. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a factual error or procedural irregularity may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial team. Appeals and complaints will be considered fairly and in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and publication ethics.