Peer Review Process

Al-Adzka: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Guru Madrasah Ibtidaiyah applies a rigorous double-anonymous external peer-review process to ensure the originality, academic quality, methodological reliability, relevance, and ethical integrity of all published manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the evaluation process. All submissions, reviews, revisions, and editorial decisions are managed through the journal’s online submission system.

Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript is initially examined by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor. This assessment considers the manuscript’s conformity with the journal’s Focus and Scope, originality, academic contribution, methodological quality, language, structure, compliance with the Author Guidelines, similarity-check results, and adherence to the journal’s Publication Ethics and Research Integrity.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, lack sufficient scholarly contribution, contain serious methodological weaknesses, fail to meet ethical requirements, or do not comply with the submission guidelines may be rejected without external review. This decision is referred to as desk rejection.

Independent External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent external reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic, theoretical framework, and research methodology. The journal prioritizes reviewers who are not members of the authors’ institutions, have not recently collaborated with the authors, and have no financial, personal, supervisory, institutional, or professional relationships that could affect their impartiality.

Members of the editorial board may only review a manuscript when they possess highly specific expertise, have no conflict of interest, and are not involved in the final editorial decision. The journal prioritizes reviewers from outside the editorial board and outside the authors’ institutional or collaborative networks.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the clarity and significance of the research problem, originality of the contribution, relevance of the literature, appropriateness of the methodology, transparency of data collection and analysis, consistency between findings and conclusions, theoretical and practical implications, ethical compliance, and quality of academic presentation.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, evidence-based, respectful, and academically justified comments. Recommendations to add references must be based solely on scholarly relevance and must not be intended to increase the citations of the reviewer, the journal, an institution, or a particular author.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts, review reports, author responses, and editorial correspondence. Unpublished information obtained through peer review must not be shared with unauthorized individuals or used for personal research, professional advantage, or financial benefit.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation. They should decline the invitation when they have the same institutional affiliation as an author, recent co-authorship or collaboration, a supervisory or personal relationship, direct academic competition, financial interests, or any other circumstances that may compromise impartial judgment.

Reviewers must inform the editor when they identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, unethical research involving human participants or children, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other potential violations of research integrity.

Review Duration

The journal aims to complete the first round of external peer review within four to eight weeks after a manuscript is assigned to reviewers. The duration may be extended when additional expertise is required, reviewers become unavailable, conflicting reports need clarification, or substantial methodological and ethical issues must be examined.

Authors will be informed through the online submission system if significant delays occur. The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a specific period because the duration depends on the quality of the manuscript, reviewer availability, and the extent of revisions required.

Editorial Decisions

After considering the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s academic assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

1. Accept without revision;
2. Accept with minor revisions;
3. Reconsider after major revisions;
4. Resubmit for a new round of review; or
5. Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor based on the manuscript’s scholarly quality, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal’s scope, reviewer reports, and author responses.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may request clarification, appoint an additional independent reviewer, or make a reasoned editorial decision based on the available evidence.

Revision and Re-Review

Authors must respond to every reviewer and editor comment through a detailed response-to-reviewers document. The response should explain how each recommendation has been addressed and identify any suggestion that has not been followed, together with an academic justification.

Revised manuscripts must clearly indicate substantial changes. Manuscripts requiring major revision may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

The editor may reject a revised manuscript when the authors fail to address major methodological, theoretical, ethical, or presentation concerns adequately.

Confidentiality and Data Protection

Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer identities, author identities, editorial correspondence, or unpublished findings outside the formal editorial process.

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, data, or supporting materials to public generative artificial intelligence platforms or external services that do not guarantee confidentiality and data protection. Further requirements are provided in the journal’s Generative AI Policy.

Conflict of Interest and Editorial Independence

Editors must withdraw from handling manuscripts when they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. Such manuscripts will be reassigned to another qualified editor who has no relationship with the authors or their institutions.

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, reviewers, or individuals closely affiliated with the journal will undergo the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions. They will be managed by an independent editor and evaluated by external reviewers who have no conflict of interest.

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, and ethical compliance. Decisions are not influenced by nationality, institutional affiliation, academic status, gender, religion, political views, personal relationships, or commercial considerations.

Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns

When reviewers or editors identify possible research or publication misconduct, the review process may be suspended while the concern is examined. The journal may request raw data, research instruments, ethical-approval documents, informed-consent records, statistical outputs, interview documentation, or other supporting evidence.

Ethical concerns will be handled according to the journal’s Publication Ethics and Research Integrity, Plagiarism Check, Ethical Oversight, and Article Retraction policies.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual, procedural, or ethical error affected the review process. Appeals must be submitted in writing, clearly identify the contested decision, respond specifically to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments, and provide relevant scholarly evidence.

Appeals based solely on disagreement with academic judgment will not normally be considered. Whenever possible, appeals will be examined by an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision. Detailed procedures are available in the journal’s Appeals and Complaints policy.

Online Review Management

All manuscripts must be submitted through the official Al-Adzka online submission system. Reviewer invitations, review reports, author revisions, editorial decisions, and correspondence must also be managed through the system to ensure transparency, traceability, confidentiality, and proper documentation.

Manuscripts sent through personal email, messaging applications, or other unofficial channels will not enter the formal peer-review process.