Reviewer Guidelines

Jurnal Pendidikan Anak · Peer Review

Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly integrity. These guidelines describe what Jurnal Pendidikan Anak (JPA) expects from reviewers at every stage, ensuring evaluations remain objective, evidence-based, constructive, and ethical.

COPE-aligned Double-blind peer review Child-participant ethics

independent reviewers per manuscript

2–4 wks

standard review timeframe

Double-Blind

mutual anonymity preserved

100%

confidentiality — manuscripts & reports

Standards. These guidelines adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and should be read alongside the journal's Publication Ethics Statement, Peer Review Process, AI Usage Policy, and Ethical Oversight Policy.

On this page

1 · Role 2 · Invitation 3 · Confidentiality 4 · Conflicts of interest 5 · Model & timeline 6 · What to evaluate 7 · Research ethics 8 · Integrity concerns 9 · Writing the report 10 · Recommendation 11 · Revised versions 12 · AI restrictions 13 · Conduct & complaints 14 · Checklist 15 · Contact

The Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers act in an advisory capacity to the editorial board. Final publication decisions rest exclusively with the Section Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers are expected to:

Evaluate submissions objectively, fairly, and strictly within their domain of scholarly competence.
Provide detailed, constructive, and evidence-supported feedback that assists authors in enhancing their scholarship.
Alert handling editors confidentially to potential ethical infractions, data anomalies, text recycling, or plagiarized material.
Maintain absolute confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the evaluation process.

Before Accepting an Invitation

Reviewers should accept an evaluation request only if they can confirm all of the following conditions:

Expertise.
The manuscript directly aligns with your academic expertise in early childhood education, teacher pedagogy, child development, or associated educational methodologies.

Time.
You are able to commit the time required to complete a thorough review within the agreed timeframe (normally 2–4 weeks).

Impartiality.
You have no personal, professional, institutional, or financial conflicts of interest that could compromise an objective assessment.

Personal Review.
You will complete the review personally. Do not delegate the manuscript to junior colleagues or students without prior editorial consent.

Note: If you must decline an invitation, please notify the editorial team immediately so that an alternative reviewer can be identified without causing delays to the authors.

Confidentiality Obligations

Every submitted manuscript is a privileged, strictly confidential document. Reviewers must:

Not share, copy, circulate, or discuss any part of the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial workflow.
Not utilize unpublished concepts, observational data, instruments, or insights for personal or academic gain prior to official publication.
Refrain from contacting the authors directly — all correspondence must proceed strictly via the OJS portal.
Never cite, distribute, or quote the manuscript prior to its official release.
Delete or destroy all downloaded manuscript files after submitting the final report.

Reviewer identities remain strictly anonymous. Reviewers must ensure their names are not inadvertently disclosed in report remarks or within the document properties of uploaded files.

Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest arises whenever relationships could inappropriately bias, or reasonably be perceived to bias, the peer evaluation. Reviewers must recuse themselves and alert the editor if:

They have co-authored publications or participated in collaborative grants with any author within the past three years.
They have an active mentor–mentee, supervisory, familial, or close personal relationship with an author.
They work within the exact same department, research cluster, or early childhood institution as the authors.
They are in direct scholarly competition or possess financial interests tied to the outcomes of the work.
They recognize the author's identity despite manuscript blinding and feel this awareness impairs their objectivity.

Transparency Principle. When uncertain, declare potential associations to the handling editor. The editor will determine whether recusal or replacement is warranted.

Review Workflow and Timelines

JPA operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process. Following initial desk evaluation by the editorial office, manuscripts are assigned to a minimum of two external reviewers:

Phase 1

Desk Screening

Scope fit, formatting, and Turnitin similarity checks

1–2 weeks

Phase 2

Peer Evaluation

First round evaluation by at least two independent reviewers

2–4 weeks

Phase 3

Author Revision

Authors address reviewer comments and revise text

2–3 weeks

Phase 4

Final Decision

Re-review assessment and editorial determination

1–2 weeks

What to Evaluate

Reviewers should assess both strengths and areas requiring substantial improvement across all manuscript sections:

Section	Core Questions to Consider
Title & Abstract	Is the title concise and representative? Does the abstract clearly state the research problem, methodology, findings, and conclusion without unsubstantiated claims?
Introduction	Is the background well-situated within early childhood education? Is the literature review contemporary? Is the research gap explicitly established?
Methodology	Is the research design sound and aligned with the objectives? Are sampling techniques, measurement rubrics, observation settings, validity, and reliability documented thoroughly enough for replication?
Results & Discussion	Are findings clearly presented using appropriate tables and graphs? Are empirical data interpreted critically against existing global literature rather than merely re-stating numbers?
Conclusion & Implications	Do the conclusions derive directly from the data? Are practical pedagogical implications for early childhood educators or policymakers clearly stated?
References	Are references up-to-date (preferably published in the last 10 years) and formatted in APA 7th Style? Are there any signs of excessive, unwarranted self-citation?
Declarations	Are mandatory declarations present, including ethical approval, funding details, competing interests, author contributions (CRediT), and generative AI disclosures?

Research Ethics & Child Subject Protection

Because JPA specializes in early childhood studies, reviewers must exercise heightened vigilance regarding research ethics involving young children:

Parental Consent
Empirical research involving young participants must report documented written informed consent from parents or legal guardians, along with age-appropriate child assent.

Ethics Approval
Fieldwork in kindergartens, preschools, or daycare centers must provide an institutional ethical clearance protocol number issued by an authorized ethics committee.

Participant Privacy
Children, families, and educational institutions must be carefully pseudonymized or fully anonymized across all narrative data.

Visual Media Obscurity
Photographs or video stills showing children must have facial features blurred or shielded to safeguard child privacy, unless explicit written consent for media dissemination is on file.

Integrity and Misconduct Alerts

Notify the editor confidentially if you identify any indications of:

Plagiarism, extensive text recycling, or undisclosed overlap with prior literature.
Data fabrication, manipulated charts, or artificial results.
Dual, redundant, or concurrent submissions elsewhere.
Omission of institutional ethical approvals or participant consent.
Non-existent references, artificial citation rings, or citation stuffing.

Do not attempt private investigations or confront authors directly. Place these observations within the confidential "Comments for the Editor" box. Editors will handle inquiries according to formal COPE flowcharts.

Structuring the Review Report

An impactful peer review report typically includes:

1 Brief Summary 2 General Assessment 3 Major Revisions 4 Minor Improvements

✓ Recommended Practice

Be precise and reference specific pages, sections, or table numbers.
Substantiate analytical critiques with relevant literature or theoretical logic.
Distinguish clearly between critical flaws and optional stylistic suggestions.
Maintain an objective, encouraging, and scholarly tone throughout.

✗ Unacceptable Practice

Personal, dismissive, hostile, or discriminatory language.
Unsubstantiated generic statements such as “poorly written” without details.
Demanding authors cite the reviewer's own papers (coercive citation).
Placing private editorial recommendations in comments meant for authors.

Submitting Recommendations

Accept Submission
The manuscript meets publishing standards and requires no substantive conceptual changes.

Minor Revisions
The scholarship is sound; requires small textual improvements, literature updates, or clarity adjustments.

Major Revisions (Resubmit)
Strong potential, but requires significant empirical re-analysis or structural revision; subject to re-review.

Decline Submission
Fatal methodological flaws, serious scope mismatch, or fundamental integrity issues that revisions cannot cure.

Assessing Revised Manuscripts

When invited to evaluate a revised version, reviewers should determine whether the author has satisfied prior critiques in the point-by-point response matrix. Reviewers should avoid raising new, unrelated demands unless modifications introduced new analytical errors. Confidentiality and conflict-of-interest principles apply identically during follow-up rounds.

Prohibition on Generative AI Tools

No Uploading: Reviewers must never upload manuscripts or raw data into external AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini). This violates manuscript confidentiality, copyright laws, and participant data privacy.
Original Scholarly Judgement: Generative AI must not be used to draft reviewer critiques or recommendations. Review reports must represent the direct, human intellectual contribution of the designated reviewer.
Reviewers remain entirely accountable for their critiques. See JPA's complete AI Usage Policy.

Reviewer Conduct and Appeals

Reviewers must act transparently and ethically. Attempting to delay evaluations to gain personal advantages, using fabricated profiles, or demanding coercive citations will result in removal from JPA's reviewer pool and notification of associated institutions.

Reviewers wishing to raise procedural concerns or appeal an editorial decision regarding review conduct should contact the Editor-in-Chief. Post-publication inquiries proceed via the journal's Corrections & Retractions channel.