J-ITLE
Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Innovative Technologies in Learning and Education (J-ITLE) applies a peer-review policy to ensure that all published scholarly articles meet appropriate standards of academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s focus and scope.
All research articles, review papers, case studies, and technical reports submitted to J-ITLE are subject to editorial screening and peer review before publication. The journal uses a double-blind peer-review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.
1. Purpose of Peer Review
The purpose of peer review is to support fair, objective, and evidence-based editorial decisions. Peer review helps the journal evaluate the scholarly quality of manuscripts, identify areas for improvement, and ensure that published articles contribute meaningfully to the field of innovative technologies in learning and education.
Peer review also supports the integrity of the scholarly record by helping to identify possible issues related to originality, methodology, data interpretation, ethical compliance, plagiarism, citation practice, and research transparency.
2. Type of Peer Review
J-ITLE uses a double-blind peer-review process.
- The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
- The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.
- Review reports are treated as confidential editorial documents.
- Reviews are not published together with the article.
- Reviewers remain anonymous unless otherwise required by editorial policy or ethical investigation.
Authors are expected to remove identifying information from the manuscript file where necessary. Author details, affiliations, email addresses, and other metadata should be entered separately through the OJS submission system.
3. Manuscripts Subject to Peer Review
The following manuscript types are subject to peer review:
- Original Research Articles;
- Review Papers;
- Case Studies;
- Technical Reports.
Editorial materials, announcements, calls for papers, acknowledgements, corrections, retraction notices, and other non-research content may be handled editorially and may not undergo the same peer-review process. If an article or item receives a different form of review, this may be indicated where appropriate.
4. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team. The initial screening is conducted to determine whether the manuscript meets the basic requirements for further review.
The initial screening includes assessment of:
- Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
- Compliance with author guidelines and article template;
- Completeness of manuscript structure and metadata;
- Completeness of author names, affiliations, countries, and email addresses;
- Language quality and readability;
- Originality and similarity/plagiarism concerns;
- Ethical compliance, including conflicts of interest, funding disclosure, ethical approval, research permission, or informed consent where applicable;
- Suitability for the journal’s academic standards.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to authors for correction or declined before peer review.
5. Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
Reviewers are selected based on:
- Relevant academic or professional expertise;
- Publication and reviewing experience;
- Knowledge of the manuscript topic or methodology;
- Availability to complete the review within the expected timeframe;
- Absence of actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
Reviewers may be external experts, editorial board members, or other qualified scholars who are not involved in the authorship of the manuscript. Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, confidential, and timely evaluations.
6. Use of Author-Suggested Reviewers
Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission where applicable. However, the editorial team is not obligated to use author-suggested reviewers.
The final selection of reviewers is made by the Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, or assigned Handling Editor. Suggested reviewers must not have conflicts of interest with the authors, the manuscript, or the research institution involved.
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 work;
- Clarity of research problem, objectives, and research questions;
- Quality and relevance of the literature review;
- Appropriateness of theoretical or conceptual framework;
- Soundness of research design and methodology;
- Validity and reliability of data collection and analysis;
- Clarity and accuracy of results presentation;
- Depth and relevance of discussion;
- Contribution to educational technology, digital learning, learning innovation, and education;
- Ethical compliance and research transparency;
- Quality of language, organization, tables, figures, and references;
- Compliance with APA 7th edition citation and reference style.
8. Reviewer Recommendations
After completing the review, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:
- Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantial revision required.
- Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor or moderate revision before it can be considered for acceptance.
- Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires major revision and further review before a decision can be made.
- Decline Submission: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in J-ITLE.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor based on reviewer reports, manuscript quality, ethical considerations, journal policy, and editorial judgment.
9. Editorial Decision-Making
The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, or assigned Handling Editor. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal’s scope, ethical compliance, reviewer recommendations, and the quality of author revisions.
Possible editorial decisions include:
- Accept submission;
- Revisions required;
- Resubmit for review;
- Decline submission.
Editorial 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 Policy
When revisions are required, authors must respond to all reviewer and editorial comments carefully and professionally. Authors should submit a revised manuscript and a response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.
If authors disagree with reviewer comments, they should provide a clear and respectful explanation in the response letter. The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor or returned to reviewers for further assessment, particularly when major revisions are required.
11. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial discussions, and related correspondence are treated as confidential. Editors, reviewers, and journal staff must not disclose, share, copy, or use unpublished materials from submitted manuscripts for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers must not discuss manuscripts with others without permission from the editorial team.
12. Conflicts of Interest
Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
Conflicts of interest may include financial relationships, institutional relationships, academic competition, personal relationships, professional collaboration, employment, consultancy, funding, or other circumstances that may influence objectivity.
Editors or reviewers who have conflicts of interest with a manuscript must decline involvement in the editorial or review process.
13. Ethical Concerns During Peer Review
If ethical concerns are identified during peer review, the editorial team may request clarification, supporting documents, raw data, ethical approval, informed consent, research permission, or other relevant evidence from the authors.
If serious ethical concerns 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 in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy.
14. Supplementary Materials
Supplementary materials submitted with a manuscript may be considered during editorial screening and peer review when they are relevant to the evaluation of the research. Authors are responsible for ensuring that supplementary materials are accurate, properly cited, ethically obtained, and free from copyright or privacy violations.
15. Peer Review Timeline
The peer-review and editorial process typically takes approximately 4–8 weeks. However, the timeline may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision requirements, editorial workload, and publication schedule.
If significant delays occur, authors may contact the editorial office for an update on the status of their submission.
The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed timeframe. Acceptance depends on manuscript quality, reviewer evaluation, author revisions, ethical compliance, and final editorial approval.
16. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that 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 and must include a clear explanation and supporting evidence. The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor will review the appeal and may consult editorial board members or independent reviewers when necessary.
Complaints regarding the peer-review process, editorial conduct, publication ethics, or journal management may also be submitted to the editorial office. All complaints will be handled fairly, confidentially, and in a timely manner.
17. Reviewer Recognition
J-ITLE recognizes the voluntary contributions of reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. The journal may acknowledge reviewer contributions through certificates, reviewer acknowledgement pages, or annual acknowledgements, while maintaining the confidentiality of the peer-review process.
18. Relation to Peer Review Process Page
This Peer Review Policy explains the principles, standards, and ethical requirements governing peer review in J-ITLE. For a more detailed description of the step-by-step editorial workflow, authors may refer to the Peer Review Process page.
19. Contact
For questions regarding the peer-review policy, 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
