PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Every manuscript submitted to JIPFRI (Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Fisika dan Riset Ilmiah) undergoes a strict and rigorous peer-review process. The following is the editorial workflow that every manuscript must undergo:

1. Initial Screening

Upon receipt, the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor will perform an initial check of the manuscript to ensure:

  • The manuscript falls within the scope and focus of the journal.

  • The manuscript complies with the Author Guidelines and template.

  • The similarity index is below 20% (checked using Turnitin/iThenticate).

Manuscripts that fail to meet these initial criteria will be rejected (Desk Reject) without being sent to reviewers.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers. JIPFRI employs a double-blind review method, where the authors remain anonymous to the reviewers and vice versa throughout the process. An editorial decision is made only after at least two completed review reports have been received; where the two reports disagree, the Editor may invite a third reviewer.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and lack of conflict of interest. They are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and novelty.

  • Methodological rigor.

  • Clarity of presentation.

  • Contribution to the field of physics education.

3. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports and recommendations, the Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted without any changes.

  • Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor changes. The author must submit the revised version within the specified timeframe.

  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires major changes/substantial rewriting. It will likely undergo another round of review after resubmission.

  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected.

4. Reasons for Rejection

Common reasons for the rejection of a manuscript include, but are not limited to:

  • Out of Scope: The topic is not relevant to physics education or scientific research as defined by JIPFRI.

  • Formatting Issues: The manuscript does not follow the Author Guidelines or template strictly.

  • Methodological Flaws: There are fundamental errors in the research design, data analysis, or interpretation.

  • Lack of Novelty: The study does not offer significant new insights or contributions.

  • Plagiarism: The manuscript shows a high similarity index (above 20%) or contains unethical overlaps with existing publications.

  • Unresponsiveness: The author refuses to address the reviewers' suggestions without a logical or scientific basis.

5. Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers are active researchers in physics education or physics who hold at least a master's degree, have a track record of publications in national accredited (SINTA) or international peer-reviewed journals within the last three years, and are not affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors. Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest and decline the invitation if one exists.

6. Review Timeline

  • Initial screening: within 14 days of submission.
  • Peer review: reviewers are asked to complete their report within 21 days of accepting the invitation.
  • Author revision: up to 14 days for minor revisions and up to 30 days for major revisions.
  • Additional review rounds are conducted when required until the Editor is satisfied that all reviewer comments have been adequately addressed.

7. Acceptance and Letter of Acceptance

A Letter of Acceptance (LoA) is issued only after the manuscript has completed the peer-review process and the Editor has made an Accept decision in the journal system. JIPFRI does not offer fast-track review or publication, and payment of the Article Processing Charge has no influence on editorial decisions. The complete manuscript history (received, revised, accepted, and published dates) is printed on every published article.

8. Ethical Standards and Appeals

The peer-review process follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. All review activities are carried out within the journal's online system. Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to evaluate manuscripts or to write review reports, as stated in the journal's Gen AI Policy. Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit an appeal as described in the Misconduct, Complaints & Appeals policy.