J-ITLE
Peer Review Process
The Journal of Innovative Technologies in Learning and Education (J-ITLE) applies a peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and ethical integrity of published articles. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated through editorial screening and peer review before a final editorial decision is made.
J-ITLE uses a double-blind peer review model. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to support fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity in the review process.
1. Initial Submission
Authors must submit manuscripts through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Manuscripts must be prepared according to the official J-ITLE article template and author guidelines.
During submission, authors are required to provide complete and accurate metadata, including article title, abstract, keywords, author names, affiliations, email addresses, references, and supporting documents where applicable.
Authors must also ensure that the manuscript is original, unpublished, not under consideration elsewhere, and compliant with the journal’s publication ethics and plagiarism policy.
2. Administrative and Editorial Screening
After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript meets the basic requirements of the journal.
The initial screening includes checking:
- Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
- Compliance with the J-ITLE article template and author guidelines;
- Completeness of author information, affiliations, and email addresses;
- Completeness and accuracy of article metadata;
- Clarity of title, abstract, keywords, and manuscript structure;
- Language quality and readability;
- Similarity or plagiarism concerns;
- Ethical compliance, including conflict of interest, funding information, ethical approval, research permission, or informed consent where applicable.
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to authors for correction or declined before peer review.
3. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening
All submitted manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism or similarity checking tools before or during the editorial review process.
J-ITLE does not tolerate plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, citation manipulation, or other forms of research and publication misconduct.
Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 20%, excluding references and bibliography, may be returned to authors for revision or rejected, depending on the nature and extent of the similarity. The editorial team may also reject a manuscript with a similarity index below 20% if substantial plagiarism, unattributed copying, or unethical reuse is detected.
4. Assignment to Section Editor or Handling Editor
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening may be assigned to a Section Editor or Handling Editor. The assigned editor is responsible for managing the review process, selecting suitable reviewers, monitoring review progress, evaluating reviewer comments, and recommending an editorial decision.
The editor may also decide that a manuscript is unsuitable for peer review if it is outside the journal’s scope, does not meet minimum scholarly standards, lacks originality, has serious methodological weaknesses, or raises unresolved ethical concerns.
5. Reviewer Selection
Each manuscript that proceeds to peer review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected based on:
- Expertise relevant to the manuscript topic;
- Academic and professional qualifications;
- Publication and reviewing experience;
- Availability to complete the review within the required timeframe;
- Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors, institution, or manuscript topic.
Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality and provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback.
6. Double-Blind Peer Review
J-ITLE applies a double-blind peer-review system. Authors are expected to remove identifying information from the manuscript file where necessary, while author metadata are submitted separately through the OJS system.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts without knowing the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
The double-blind process is intended to reduce bias and support fair evaluation based on the scholarly quality of the manuscript.
7. Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Relevance to the focus and scope of J-ITLE;
- Originality and novelty of the study;
- Clarity of research problem, objectives, and research questions;
- Strength and relevance of the literature review;
- Appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
- Soundness of research methodology;
- Validity and reliability of data collection and analysis;
- Clarity and accuracy of results presentation;
- Depth and relevance of discussion;
- Contribution to educational technology, learning innovation, and education;
- Ethical compliance and transparency;
- Quality of writing, organization, tables, figures, and references;
- Compliance with APA 7th edition citation and reference style.
8. Reviewer Recommendations
After completing the review, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
- Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantial revisions required.
- Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor or moderate revisions before it can be considered for acceptance.
- Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires major revisions and must be reviewed again before a decision can be made.
- Decline Submission: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in J-ITLE.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor based on reviewer reports, manuscript quality, journal policies, and editorial judgment.
9. Editorial Decision
The editorial team considers reviewer comments and recommendations before making an editorial decision. The possible editorial decisions include:
- Accept submission;
- Revisions required;
- Resubmit for review;
- Decline submission.
Authors will receive the editorial decision through the OJS platform, together with reviewer comments and editorial feedback where applicable.
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, reviewer recommendations, and contribution to the field. Decisions are not influenced by author nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, personal relationships, financial considerations, sponsorship, advertising, or potential citation impact.
10. Revision Process
When revisions are required, authors must respond to all reviewer and editorial comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript within the requested timeframe.
Authors should provide:
- A revised manuscript with changes clearly made according to reviewer and editorial feedback;
- A response letter explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed;
- A clear explanation for any reviewer suggestion that was not followed.
The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor or returned to reviewers for further assessment, especially when major revisions are required.
11. Final Acceptance
A manuscript may be accepted for publication after the editorial team determines that the manuscript has met the journal’s scholarly, technical, ethical, and formatting requirements.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and production before publication in the scheduled issue.
Acceptance of a manuscript does not depend on any author payment, sponsorship, institutional relationship, or non-academic consideration.
12. Copyediting, Layout Editing, and Proofreading
After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production stage. The production process may include copyediting, layout editing, reference checking, metadata checking, DOI preparation, and proofreading.
Authors may be asked to review the final proof before publication. Authors are responsible for checking the accuracy of names, affiliations, email addresses, title, abstract, tables, figures, references, and other article details before final publication.
13. Review Timeline
The estimated editorial and review process may take up to approximately two months, depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision requirements, editorial workload, and production schedule.
A general estimated timeline is as follows:
- Initial screening: approximately 1–2 weeks;
- Peer review: approximately 3–6 weeks;
- Revision process: depends on the extent of revisions required and author response time;
- Copyediting and production: approximately 1–3 weeks after acceptance.
These timelines are estimates and may vary depending on the condition of each manuscript and the availability of reviewers and editors.
14. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial discussions, and correspondence are treated as confidential. Editors, reviewers, and journal staff must not disclose or use unpublished materials from submitted manuscripts for personal advantage.
Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, distribute, or use manuscript content without permission from the editorial team.
15. Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before handling or reviewing a manuscript.
A conflict of interest may include financial relationships, institutional relationships, academic competition, personal relationships, professional collaboration, employment, consultancy, or other circumstances that may influence objectivity.
Editors or reviewers with a conflict of interest must decline involvement in the manuscript evaluation process.
16. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit an appeal if they believe an editorial decision was affected by a misunderstanding, factual error, procedural error, or conflict of interest.
Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office with a clear explanation and supporting evidence. The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor will review the appeal and may consult additional editorial board members or independent reviewers when necessary.
Complaints regarding the peer-review process, editorial conduct, or publication ethics may also be submitted to the editorial office. All complaints will be handled fairly, confidentially, and in a timely manner.
17. Ethical Concerns During Review
If ethical concerns are identified during the review process, the editorial team may request clarification, supporting documents, raw data, ethical approval, informed consent, or other relevant evidence from the authors.
If serious ethical issues are confirmed, the manuscript may be rejected. If ethical issues are discovered after publication, the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction according to the journal’s publication ethics policy.
18. Contact
For questions regarding the peer-review process, editorial decisions, appeals, complaints, or manuscript status, please contact:
Journal of Innovative Technologies in Learning and Education (J-ITLE)
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Universitas Citra Bangsa, Indonesia
Email: edu@ucb.ac.id
