Widyakara Journal uses double-blind peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout. Every manuscript that passes initial screening is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. The whole process is run and recorded in the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS), following COPE's Core Practices and Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

At a glance. Double-blind · at least two reviewers per manuscript · reviewers respond within 7 days and review within 21 days · similarity checked with Turnitin (≤ 20% overall, ≤ 1% per source) · first decision in about 6 weeks · final decision within 4 months of submission, excluding copyediting and publication.

1. Principles

• Anonymity: authors submit an anonymised manuscript (Author Guidelines); reviewers do not know who wrote it, and authors do not know who reviewed it.
• Independence: decisions rest only on scholarly merit and fit with the scope.
• Confidentiality: manuscripts and reviews are not shared, cited, used, or uploaded to AI tools before publication.
• Constructiveness: reviews are specific, respectful, evidence-based, and aimed at improving the work.
• Accountability: reviewers advise; the editors decide and remain responsible for the process.

2. Step-by-Step Review Process

1. Submission. The author submits three files through OJS: the Title Page, the Anonymised Manuscript, and the signed Statement of Originality. Only the Anonymised Manuscript is sent to reviewers.
2. Initial screening (within 7 days). The Editor-in-Chief or a section editor checks fit with the scope, use of the template and formal requirements (structure, statements, APA 7th edition, at least 20 references), anonymisation, the Turnitin report (uploaded to the submission record in OJS), and the basic quality of English, argument, and method. Outcomes: sent to review; returned for technical correction (resubmit within 7 days); or declined with a short explanation.
3. Assignment of a handling editor. The Editor-in-Chief assigns a section editor with relevant expertise. Editors with a conflict of interest, such as a colleague, recent co-author, or supervisor of an author, do not handle the manuscript.
4. Reviewer invitation. The handling editor invites at least two reviewers who have expertise in the topic or method; a publication record in the last three years in nationally accredited (SINTA) or internationally indexed journals; an institutional email address and a public profile such as ORCID, SINTA, or Google Scholar; and an institution different from the authors'. At least one of the two reviewers is from outside Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. Invited reviewers respond within 7 days; if they decline or do not respond, another reviewer is invited.
5. Review (21 days). Reviewers complete the journal's review form in OJS, give comments for the authors and confidential comments for the editor, and may upload an annotated file with identifying information removed. Reviews sent by email are not used; every review is recorded in OJS. A review overdue after an agreed extension of up to 5 days is reassigned.
6. Editorial decision. Within 7 days of receiving both reviews, the handling editor recommends a decision to the Editor-in-Chief. If the reviews conflict sharply, a third reviewer is invited. The decision letter includes all anonymised reviewer comments.
7. Revision. Minor revisions are due within 1 week and major revisions within 3 weeks. Authors upload the revised Anonymised Manuscript with changes highlighted and a Response to Reviewers table that answers every comment.
8. Re-review and final decision. After major revisions the manuscript returns to the reviewers, who have 10 days to re-review. After minor revisions the editor checks the revision. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision within 4 months of submission.
9. After acceptance. The accepted date is recorded in OJS. The manuscript is copyedited, laid out by the editorial team, proofread by the authors, and published online with a DOI.

Timeline

Stage	Time allowed	Cumulative (weeks)
Initial screening and assignment of handling editor	1 week	1
Reviewer invitation and acceptance	1 week	2
First-round review	3 weeks	5
First decision	1 week	6
Revision by the authors (major)	3 weeks	9
Re-review and second decision	2 weeks	11
Minor revision and final check	2 weeks	13
Final decision by the Editor-in-Chief	1 week	14
Reserve for extra rounds or a third reviewer	up to 3 weeks	17 (about 4 months)

3. Review Criteria

• Relevance and novelty: importance for vocational education, administration, or digital transformation; a clear state of the art and research gap.
• Introduction: a clear problem, gap, and objective; an appropriate theoretical framework.
• Method: appropriate design, sampling, instruments (with validity and reliability), and analysis; ethical procedures for research with people.
• Results and discussion: findings supported by data; interpretation compared with previous studies; implications and limitations.
• Conclusion: answers the objective without repeating results.
• References: at least 20 sources, at least 80% journal articles or other primary sources, at least 80% from the last 10 years, in APA 7th edition.
• Presentation: clear academic English, informative tables and figures, consistent style.
• Ethics: originality, similarity, and complete statements (author contributions, funding, conflict of interest, ethics, data availability, generative AI use).

4. Decision Categories

Decision	Meaning
Accept	Accepted with no or only editorial changes.
Minor revision	Accepted in principle; small changes checked by the editor.
Major revision	Substantial changes needed; the revised manuscript is re-reviewed.
Reject	Not suitable for the journal, with reasons given.

5. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal a decision to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days, giving specific reasons, at journal_widyakara@uny.ac.id. The appeal is assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision and who may seek an additional review. The appeal decision is final.

6. Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers receive a certificate of reviewing and are listed on the Reviewers page with their consent. Reviewers may record verified reviews on their ORCID record where supported.

Sources: COPE (2017) Core practices; COPE Council (2017) Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 2); Direktorat Jenderal Sains dan Teknologi (2026) Keputusan Nomor 374/DST/D.D1/HM.01.01/2026 tentang Petunjuk Teknis Akreditasi Jurnal Ilmiah.