JSPD: Jurnal Sekorong Pendidikan Dasar is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, academic integrity, and relevance of every scholarly article it publishes. To ensure that published manuscripts meet academic, methodological, and publication ethics standards, the journal implements a systematic, objective, and transparent peer review process.

JSPD employs a single-blind peer review system, in which reviewers know the authors' identities, while reviewers' identities remain confidential to the authors. This system aims to support objective assessment while providing constructive academic feedback to improve manuscript quality.

Each manuscript is evaluated based on its originality, relevance to the journal's focus and scope, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, contribution to the development of primary education, and compliance with research and publication ethics.

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Evaluation

Every manuscript submitted to JSPD undergoes an initial evaluation by the editorial team before proceeding to peer review.

At this stage, the editor assesses whether the manuscript:

a. Falls within the journal's focus and scope, particularly research and scholarly studies in primary education.

b. Complies with the author guidelines and technical submission requirements.

c. Clearly presents the research problem, objectives, and scholarly contribution.

d. Employs a research design, methods, and analytical approach appropriate to the research objectives or manuscript type.

e. Meets basic standards of originality, academic writing, and publication ethics.

f. Includes the necessary statements and supporting information, such as ethical approval, participant consent, funding sources, conflicts of interest, and the use of artificial intelligence, where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet the technical requirements may be returned to the authors for correction. The editor may reject a manuscript without external review if it falls outside the journal's scope, does not demonstrate an adequate scholarly contribution, contains fundamental weaknesses, or raises serious ethical concerns.

Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements will proceed to the peer review stage.

2. Peer Review Policy

JSPD employs a single-blind peer review system. Under this system, reviewers know the authors' identities, but reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Each manuscript entering external peer review is evaluated by at least two reviewers with expertise or relevant competencies in the manuscript's topic, research methodology, or educational context. Reviewers may be selected from the journal's reviewer pool or from academics and practitioners with expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessments. Their reports serve as a basis for the editor's decision regarding publication suitability and help authors improve the quality of their scholarly work.

The editor may make an initial decision without external review if a manuscript clearly falls outside the journal's scope, fails to meet minimum scholarly standards, or presents indications of serious ethical concerns. In certain circumstances, the editor may establish alternative review arrangements, provided that fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity are maintained.

3. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to criteria appropriate to their type and subject area.

3.1. Relevance to the Journal's Scope

The manuscript addresses issues relevant to primary education, including teaching and learning, curriculum development, teaching models and strategies, assessment, literacy and numeracy, learner development, inclusive education, educational technology, teacher professional development, educational management, environmental education, and the integration of culture and local wisdom into learning.

3.2. Originality and Scholarly Contribution

The manuscript presents original research findings, a meaningful conceptual contribution, or a systematic synthesis of knowledge supported by relevant scholarly sources. Its contribution to the development of primary education must be adequately explained.

3.3. Research Problem and Theoretical Foundation

The research problem, objectives, and research questions are clearly formulated. The manuscript is supported by relevant and credible scholarly literature and demonstrates an adequate understanding of previous research.

3.4. Methodological Quality

The research design, subjects or data sources, instruments, data collection procedures, and analytical techniques must be appropriate to the research objectives. Where relevant, the manuscript should provide sufficient information on validity, reliability, credibility, and research replicability.

3.5. Results and Interpretation

Research findings are presented accurately, systematically, and clearly. Interpretations must be supported by the available evidence. Conclusions must not go beyond the findings, data, or capacity of the research design to support a particular claim.

3.6. Relevance to Educational Practice

Where relevant, the manuscript explains the implications of its findings for teachers, learners, schools, curriculum development, educational policy, or the improvement of teaching and learning in primary schools.

3.7. Clarity and Organization

The manuscript is logically organized and written in clear academic language. Tables, figures, references, and other supporting materials must be relevant, accurate, and adequately explained.

3.8. Research and Publication Ethics

The manuscript must comply with ethical principles concerning originality, authorship, data integrity, citation, conflicts of interest, and the protection of research participants. Research involving children or groups requiring special protection must demonstrate appropriate safeguards, including parental or guardian consent and ethical approval where required.

Reviewers are expected to provide specific, respectful, and constructive suggestions aimed at improving manuscript quality. Comments should focus on the scholarly content rather than the author's personal characteristics.

4. Review Duration

JSPD aims to communicate the initial review outcome to authors within approximately eight weeks of manuscript submission, where feasible.

The review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need to invite additional reviewers, and the extent of revisions required. If significant delays occur, the editorial team will endeavor to inform the authors.

The eight-week target does not guarantee that a manuscript will be accepted or published within that period. Revised manuscripts may require additional assessment before a final decision is made.

5. Editorial Decisions

After considering the reviewers' reports and the overall quality of the manuscript, the editor will communicate one of the following decisions to the authors:

a. Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any remaining editorial or production requirements.

b. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes before a final decision can be made.

c. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes to its theoretical foundation, methodology, analysis, interpretation, structure, or presentation. The revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further assessment.

d. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements due to reasons such as insufficient originality, limited scholarly contribution, methodological weaknesses, incompatibility with the journal's scope, or ethical concerns.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. Authors must respond to the reviewers' comments and the editor's instructions before the manuscript can be considered further.

6. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors must resubmit their manuscripts by the deadline set by the editor. Authors are expected to provide:

1. A revised manuscript that addresses the reviewers' comments and the editor's instructions.

2. A response-to-reviewers document explaining in detail how each comment has been addressed.

3. A reasoned academic explanation for any reviewer suggestions that have not been followed.

Where necessary, authors may highlight revised sections using the method specified by the editorial team. The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor or returned to the original reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the changes.

If additional time is required, authors must contact the editorial team before the revision deadline. Failure to submit revisions or communicate with the editor within the specified period may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn or requiring a new submission, in accordance with the journal's editorial policy.

7. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor. The decision takes into account the reviewers' recommendations, the manuscript's scholarly merit, its relevance to the journal's scope, and applicable publication ethics requirements.

Reviewers provide assessments and recommendations but do not make the final decision. The editor may accept, request further revisions, or reject a manuscript even when reviewers' recommendations differ, provided that the decision is based on scholarly quality, journal policy, and ethical considerations.

Editorial decisions are communicated to authors through the journal's submission system or by email. Authors seeking clarification or wishing to request reconsideration of a decision may follow the communication and complaints procedures established by the journal.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript contents, review reports, author identities, or editorial discussions to unauthorized parties.

Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished material for personal, professional, or research purposes without the author's permission and appropriate authorization. The obligation to maintain confidentiality continues after the review process has ended.

Authors are expected to respect the confidentiality of the review process and communicate with the editorial team through the journal's official channels.

9. Reviewer Responsibilities and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must assess manuscripts objectively and inform the editor of any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may affect their independence.

Reviewers should decline an invitation if they lack the appropriate expertise, cannot complete the review within the specified timeframe, or have a conflict of interest that could compromise their objectivity.

Reviewers must notify the editor if they identify indications of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, improper data manipulation, or other ethical violations. Such concerns must be reported confidentially to the editor and, where possible, supported by clear evidence.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about manuscripts under review unless such communication is specifically authorized by the editor.

10. Research Integrity and Ethical Considerations

JSPD expects all authors to conduct and report research honestly and responsibly. Manuscripts must not contain data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, improper image or data manipulation, duplicate publication, or other forms of research misconduct.

For research involving primary school pupils or other human participants, authors must explain the relevant ethical safeguards. These may include institutional ethical approval where required, consent from a parent or legal guardian, age- and capacity-appropriate child assent where relevant, and measures to protect participants' privacy, safety, and confidentiality.

Authors must disclose relevant funding sources and conflicts of interest. The use of artificial intelligence or AI-assisted tools must be disclosed in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy and author guidelines. The use of AI does not transfer authors' responsibility for ensuring the accuracy, originality, integrity, and verification of all manuscript content.

If suspected ethical violations are identified during peer review or after publication, the editorial team will investigate in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy and take appropriate action based on the findings.

11. Reviewer Anonymity and Editorial Independence

Under the single-blind peer review system, reviewers' identities are kept confidential from authors. JSPD endeavors to protect reviewer anonymity in correspondence and review reports.

Editors must make decisions fairly and independently, without discrimination based on gender, institutional affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics unrelated to the manuscript's scholarly merit.

If a manuscript is submitted by an editor, editorial board member, or another party with a potential conflict of interest, the journal will appoint an independent editor without a relevant conflict to handle the manuscript. Editors or editorial board members who are authors must not participate in editorial decision-making concerning their own manuscripts.

12. Evaluation and Improvement of the Review Process

JSPD is committed to periodically evaluating and improving its peer review procedures. Feedback from authors, reviewers, and editors may be used to improve the efficiency, fairness, transparency, and academic quality of the review process.

JSPD seeks to foster a constructive academic environment that supports accountable research and meaningful contributions to the development of primary education.

By submitting a manuscript to JSPD: Jurnal Sekorong Pendidikan Dasar, authors are deemed to have understood and agreed to comply with the peer review procedures, editorial policies, and publication ethics requirements applicable to the journal.