Peer Review Process

Insan Cendekia: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan implements a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure that all published articles meet the highest standards of quality, originality, and academic integrity. By maintaining an objective evaluation system, the journal ensures that its contributions to the fields of Education and Culture are scientifically sound, innovative, and practically relevant.

1. Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review

To ensure fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality, Insan Cendekia applies a double-blind peer review system. In this model:

  • The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.

  • The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

  • Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two (2) independent reviewers who are experts in the specific subject matter of the submission.

2. Stages of the Review Process

  • Initial Editorial Screening: All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Team. This stage checks for alignment with the journal’s focus and scope, adherence to formatting guidelines (author guidelines), and initial plagiarism screening using specialized tools (e.g., Turnitin). Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements or show high similarity indices will be rejected immediately.

  • Peer Review Stage: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two external reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and research track record in Education, Culture, and Digital Learning Technology.

  • Review Criteria: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:

    • Originality, novelty, and contribution to the field.

    • Methodological rigor, appropriateness, and ethical compliance.

    • Clarity of arguments, logical structure, and quality of academic writing.

    • Significance of the findings to educational practices and cultural discourse.

    • Proper citation and relevance of references.

3. Review Timeline

Insan Cendekia is committed to an efficient, professional, and thorough review cycle:

  • Initial Screening: 1–2 weeks.

  • Peer Review Stage: 4–6 weeks.

  • Author Revision: 2–4 weeks (depending on the level of revision required).

  • Final Editorial Decision: 1–2 weeks after the revised version is received.

  • Total Estimated Time: 10–16 weeks from submission to final decision.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Based on their evaluation, reviewers will provide one of the following recommendations via the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform:

  1. Accept Submission: The article is ready for publication as-is.

  2. Revisions Required (Minor): The article needs small adjustments before acceptance.

  3. Resubmit for Review (Major): The article requires significant changes and a second round of review.

  4. Decline Submission: The article does not meet the scholarly standards or scope of the journal.

5. Final Decision

The final decision to publish or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board, taking into account the feedback and scores provided by the reviewers. If there are conflicting recommendations between the two reviewers (e.g., one accepts and one declines), a third reviewer will be appointed to provide a deciding opinion.

6. Post-Acceptance

Once an article is accepted, it will undergo copyediting, professional layouting, and final proofreading. Authors are required to ensure all metadata, graphical elements, and data accuracy are verified before the article is officially published online as an Open Access article.