PEER REVIEW PROCESS

DEDIKASI: Jurnal Riset Pendidikan dan Pengabdian applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure an objective evaluation process. This system is designed to guarantee the academic quality, integrity, and relevance of each published article.

Peer Review Stages

1. Submission and Initial Screening

  • Authors submit their manuscripts through the Open Journal System (OJS).

  • The Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Assistant conducts a preliminary check regarding completeness, template conformity, journal scope, and potential plagiarism.

  • Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements will be returned for revision before further processing.

2. Desk Review by the Editorial Board

  • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are reviewed by the Editorial Board based on:

    • Alignment with the journal’s focus and scope

    • Preliminary content quality

    • Adherence to writing guidelines

  • Desk review outcomes may include: acceptance for further review, request for initial revision (pre-review), or rejection.

3. Assignment of Reviewers

  • Each manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

  • Reviewers are selected based on:

    • Subject matter expertise

    • Experience as reviewers and/or academic publications

    • Absence of conflicts of interest with the author(s)

4. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently based on the following criteria:

    • Originality and novelty of the idea

    • Relevance of the activity to community needs

    • Accuracy of the implementation method

    • Impact on the target community

    • Clarity and structure of the writing

  • Reviewers submit their recommendations and comments in writing via the OJS.

5. Editorial Decision

  • Based on the reviewers’ assessments, the editor will provide one of the following decisions:

    • Accepted without revision

    • Accepted with minor revisions

    • Accepted with major revisions

    • Rejected

  • Authors are given a maximum of:

    • 7 days for minor revisions

    • 14 days for major revisions

6. Re-Review (if necessary)

  • For revised manuscripts, the editor may:

    • Conduct a direct assessment

    • Return the manuscript to the reviewers for confirmation (re-review)

7. Final Decision

  • The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on inputs from reviewers and editors.

  • Manuscripts that pass the final stage will proceed to copyediting and layout.

Peer Review Ethics

  • Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts and must not disseminate any part of their content.

  • Reviewers are prohibited from using information in the manuscript for personal or institutional benefit.

  • Conflicts of interest must be declared transparently, and reviewers should decline to review if a potential bias exists.

Review Timeline

  • The total time from submission to final decision is approximately 4–8 weeks, depending on the responsiveness of authors and reviewers.

Reviewer Acknowledgement

  • Active reviewers who provide high-quality contributions will be listed in the "Acknowledged Reviewers" section at the end of the journal’s annual volume.

  • A review certificate will be provided to reviewers in digital format.