Peer Review Process

JURNAL HURRIAH: Jurnal Evaluasi Pendidikan dan Penelitian applies a double-blind peer-review process to research articles. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two (2) independent expert reviewers who give scientific comments to improve its quality.

Review Workflow

1
Manuscript Submission
The author submits an anonymised manuscript through the online submission system, following the Author Guidelines and the article template.
2
Initial Editorial Screening
The editorial team checks focus and scope, novelty, completeness, formatting, and referencing. Unsuitable manuscripts may be rejected without external review or returned for technical correction.
3
Similarity Check (Turnitin)
Editors examine the similarity report. Manuscripts with substantial inappropriate overlap are returned or rejected.
4
Reviewer Assignment
The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflict of interest.
5
Double-Blind Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject, with written comments.
6
Editorial Decision
The editor makes the decision based on the reviewers' comments and the manuscript's scholarly merit, then informs the author.
7
Author Revision
The author submits a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response. Revisions are re-evaluated by the editor or the original reviewers.
8
Acceptance & Production
Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading.
9
Publication
The Editor-in-Chief schedules the article in an issue, considering the date of acceptance, geographical distribution of authors, and thematic issue.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts must follow the focus and scope and the author guidelines of this journal, and must present scientific merit or novelty. Screening considers:

?
Alignment with the journal's focus and scope.
?
Clarity of the research problem and the scholarly contribution (novelty).
?
Methodological adequacy and quality of argument and evidence.
?
Compliance with research ethics and publication ethics.
?
Completeness, language, formatting, and referencing according to the template.
?
Compliance with authorship, conflict-of-interest, and AI disclosure requirements.

Manuscripts outside the scope or with fundamental shortcomings may be rejected without external review. Authors must supply an anonymised manuscript: names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and other identifying information must be removed from the review version.

2. Similarity and Originality Check

All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism. Authors are encouraged to check similarity before submission. Editors check every manuscript using Turnitin software before it enters peer review, and may check again after revision.

The similarity score is a screening reference, not an automatic verdict. Editors review the matched passages, their sources, attribution, and quotation practices. Authors are given the opportunity to respond to suspected plagiarism or other integrity concerns.

Note: set the maximum similarity threshold used by your editors here (for example, 20%) so that it is consistent with your Plagiarism Policy.

3. Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

The handling editor appoints at least two (2) independent reviewers for each manuscript. Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

?
Expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject and research method.
?
A relevant publication record or recognised research experience.
?
Ability to give a fair, substantive, and constructive assessment.
?
Independence from the authors, with no conflict of interest.
?
Availability to complete the review within the agreed time.

Reviewers must disclose any competing interests and must decline manuscripts where impartial review is not possible. If a reviewer recognises the author's identity and this creates a conflict, the reviewer must inform the editor. Reviewers who decline or cannot complete the assignment are replaced. The list of reviewers is available on the Reviewers page.

4. Review Criteria and Evaluation

?
Originality and contribution: significance of the research problem and novelty for educational evaluation and research.
?
Literature: relevance, accuracy, and critical use of prior studies and theory.
?
Methodology: suitability and transparency of design, instruments, data collection, and analysis.
?
Evidence and analysis: adequacy of data, rigour, and coherence of the analysis.
?
Conclusions: whether claims are supported by findings and limitations are acknowledged.
?
Research ethics: treatment of participants, consent, confidentiality, and ethical approval where relevant.
?
Presentation: clarity of abstract, structure, language, tables/figures, and references.
?
Relevance: fit with the journal's scope and value to its readers.

Reviews must explain the reasons behind each recommendation, identify specific improvements, and distinguish essential from optional revisions. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not replace, the editor's judgment.

5. Confidentiality, Ethics, and AI Restrictions

Manuscripts, supplementary files, review reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not share them or use unpublished information for personal advantage. Reviews must be respectful and objective, and reviewers must not request irrelevant citations to raise citation counts. Suspected misconduct must be reported confidentially to the editor.

Use of AI by reviewers is not permitted. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential review information to AI tools, nor use AI to analyse, summarise, or evaluate a manuscript or to write or polish review comments. Please see the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.

6. Editorial Decisions

The final decision on acceptance is made by the Editors according to the reviewers' comments and the manuscript's scholarly merit. Decisions are not determined solely by a majority vote. Where reports differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent review.

AcceptMeets the journal's standards and proceeds to production.
Minor revisionLimited changes are required before a further decision.
Major revisionSubstantial changes and further evaluation are required.
RejectDoes not meet the requirements for publication.

Authors receive the decision, its principal reasons, and anonymised reviewer comments. A revision request does not guarantee acceptance. Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members follow the same standards and are handled by an independent editor; the author-editor has no access to reviewer identities or decision-making.

7. Revisions and Re-evaluation

Revised submissions must include:

?
A revised manuscript with changes clearly marked.
?
A clean version, where requested.
?
A point-by-point response to each editor and reviewer comment.
?
A reasoned explanation for any suggestion that was not adopted.

Major revisions are normally returned to the original reviewers; minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor. Further rounds may be required. Authors must preserve anonymisation throughout re-review.

8. Review Timeline

Edit before publishing: the durations below are placeholders. Replace them with the real targets of Jurnal Hurriah.

Stage Target timeframe
Initial editorial screening Normally four to six weeks weeks after a complete submission is received
Similarity check Normally four to six weeks, together with screening
Reviewer appointment Normally four to six weeks weeks after successful screening
External (double-blind) review Normally within four to eight weeks weeks after a reviewer accepts the assignment
First decision Normally within sixteen to twenty-eight weeks  weeks from the receipt of a complete submission
Author revisions Four weeks  weeks (minor) / eight weeks  weeks (major)
Re-review and decision Normally within eight to twelve weeks  weeks after the revised manuscript is received
Publication after acceptance Normally within twelve to twenty-four weeks weeks, depending on the production queue and issue schedule

These timeframes are operational targets, not guaranteed deadlines. Processing may take longer when reviewers must be replaced, additional review is needed, or ethical inquiries arise. The editorial office will inform authors of significant delays.

9. Acceptance and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, typesetting, and proof checking. Authors must review proofs and respond to editorial queries; substantive changes at this stage require editorial approval. The sequence of published articles is determined by the Editor-in-Chief, considering the date of acceptance, the geographical distribution of authors, and the thematic issue. Acceptance does not prevent investigation of integrity concerns identified later, and publication may be paused while they are assessed.

10. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision through the Contact page, identifying the manuscript and decision and giving specific reasons and supporting evidence, such as a material factual error or a concern about the fairness of the process. Appeals are assessed by an editor without a conflict of interest, and the outcome and its reasons are communicated to the authors. An appeal does not guarantee a reversal. Concerns about compromised peer review are handled with reference to COPE guidance and the journal's Allegation of Research Misconduct policy.

Back to top ?