Peer-Review Processes

MUKADIMAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sejarah, dan Ilmu-ilmu Sosial applies peer review to assess the originality, scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, quality of evidence, and clarity of submitted manuscripts. This policy explains the journal’s review model, editorial procedures, and the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors. The journal draws on relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Peer Review Model and Scope

MUKADIMAH uses a double-blind peer review, also known as double-anonymous peer review, for research articles and other scholarly manuscripts accepted for external assessment. Author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors.

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers provide recommendations and constructive feedback; responsibility for the publication decision rests with the editor.

Editorials, announcements, book reviews, and certain commentaries may undergo editorial assessment rather than external peer review. The applicable assessment process will be communicated to contributors, and these items will not be represented as externally peer-reviewed research articles.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo an initial assessment before external review. Editors examine:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope in education, history, and the social sciences.

  • Originality and the significance of the proposed contribution.

  • Clarity of the research problem, argument, and objectives.

  • Suitability of the methods, evidence, and source materials.

  • Compliance with submission requirements and publication ethics.

  • Completeness, readability, and readiness for peer review.

Editors may request preliminary revisions or reject manuscripts that do not meet these requirements. A decision to decline a manuscript at this stage does not require external review.

Similarity-checking tools (Turnitin) may support editorial assessment, but similarity scores alone do not establish plagiarism. Any potential overlap will be examined in context.

3. Preparing an Anonymous Manuscript

Authors must submit identifying information separately from the manuscript intended for review. The separate title page should contain author names, affiliations, contact details, and the corresponding author’s information.

The review manuscript and associated files should not contain author names, affiliations, biographies, identifying acknowledgments, or other unnecessary identifying details. Authors should also remove identifying information from file properties, comments, and tracked changes.

References to an author’s previous publications should normally remain in the reference list and be discussed in the third person. Relevant scholarship must not be omitted merely to conceal authorship.

Funding, ethics approval, repository links, or contextual details that reveal identity may be temporarily masked in the review copy where necessary. Complete information must still be provided confidentially to the editor and restored before publication.

The journal takes reasonable steps to preserve anonymity but cannot guarantee that identities will never be inferred, particularly where preprints, distinctive research settings, or publicly available materials exist.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected and appointed exclusively by the handling editor based on their relevant expertise, independence, availability, and ability to provide a fair and constructive assessment.

MUKADIMAH does not solicit or consider author-nominated reviewers. Authors should not submit reviewer recommendations through the submission system, cover letters, correspondence, or third parties. Any unsolicited recommendations will not be used in reviewer selection.

Authors may confidentially report specific, substantiated concerns about a potential conflict of interest. The editor will assess such concerns and determine the appropriate action. This reporting mechanism does not give authors authority to select, appoint, or veto reviewers.

Editors will verify reviewers’ identities, relevant qualifications, and potential conflicts of interest before appointment. Reviewers must disclose relevant interests and decline assignments where a significant conflict prevents impartial assessment. Editors with a relevant conflict must withdraw from reviewer selection and manuscript handling.

Authors must not arrange reviews of their own submissions, impersonate reviewers, provide fabricated reviewer information, or contact prospective or appointed reviewers to influence the journal’s assessment. Suspected manipulation will be examined under the journal’s Allegations of Misconduct policy, with an opportunity for the individuals concerned to respond.

All reviewer appointments and replacements remain under independent editorial control.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript in relation to its disciplinary approach and stated objectives. Relevant criteria include:

  • Originality and contribution to existing scholarship.

  • Engagement with relevant literature and academic debates.

  • Clarity of the research questions, framework, and argument.

  • Appropriateness and transparency of the research methods.

  • Adequacy, credibility, and interpretation of evidence.

  • Coherence between the evidence, analysis, and conclusions.

  • Recognition of limitations and alternative explanations.

  • Accuracy of citations, quotations, tables, and figures.

  • Compliance with applicable research ethics.

  • Clarity, organization, and readability.

For historical research, assessment may include source provenance, source criticism, contextualization, chronology, and the relationship between primary evidence and interpretation. Qualitative, conceptual, and interpretive research will be evaluated using criteria appropriate to those approaches.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must provide specific, reasoned, and constructive comments. Criticism should address the manuscript’s scholarly content rather than the authors personally.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept assignments only when they have sufficient expertise and time.

  • Identify any aspects of the manuscript outside their competence.

  • Complete the review within the agreed timeframe or promptly request an extension.

  • Explain significant criticisms and recommendations with supporting reasoning.

  • Distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions.

  • Recommend additional references only when they are relevant to the work.

  • Notify the editor of suspected ethical problems or substantial overlap with other publications.

  • Avoid using unpublished information for personal or third-party advantage.

Reviewers must not require citations primarily to increase their own citation counts or those of particular journals or groups.

A manuscript must not be delegated to another person without prior editorial permission. Where assistance is authorized, the assisting individual must be identified to the editor and comply with confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

7. Confidentiality and Responsible Use of Technology

Manuscripts, supplementary materials, review reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential. This obligation continues after the review assignment ends.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about the manuscript or disclose its contents to others without authorization. They should not attempt to identify authors in an anonymized review process.

If a reviewer recognizes an author’s identity and this creates a potential conflict, the reviewer must notify the editor promptly.

Confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded to external generative AI services or other systems where confidentiality cannot be assured. Any proposed use of AI assistance involving submission materials requires prior editorial authorization and, where relevant, explicit author permission.

Permitted assistance must be disclosed to the editor. Reviewers remain personally responsible for their assessments and must verify the accuracy of their reports. Automated output cannot replace independent expert judgment.

8. Review Reports and Their Use

Reviewers should submit their reports through the journal’s online editorial system. Reports should include comments intended for authors and, where necessary, confidential comments for the editor.

Comments for authors should explain the substantive basis for the recommendation. Confidential comments should not be used to conceal criticisms that authors reasonably need to address, except where confidentiality is necessary to handle an ethical concern.

Reviewers retain copyright in their review reports. By submitting a report, they permit MUKADIMAH to use it for editorial assessment, retain it in the editorial record, and share an anonymized version with the manuscript’s authors and, where necessary, other reviewers involved in the assessment.

Reports and reviewer identities will not be publicly disclosed without the required permissions, except where disclosure is necessary under applicable legal obligations or a properly managed integrity investigation.

Editors may remove identifying details or inappropriate language before forwarding a report, without distorting its substantive assessment.

9. Editorial Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer reports, and relevant ethical considerations before making a decision.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to necessary production checks.

  • Minor revision: Limited changes are required before a final decision.

  • Major revision: Substantial changes are required, followed by further assessment.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements or cannot be made suitable through the proposed revision process.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not operate as a vote. Where reports conflict or leave important questions unresolved, the editor may seek clarification or obtain an additional independent review.

Authors will receive a decision letter and relevant anonymized reviewer comments. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

10. Revisions and Reassessment

Authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they should provide a respectful, evidence-based explanation. They are not required to adopt suggestions that are unsupported or inappropriate, but must address the issue raised.

Revised manuscripts should remain anonymized during review. Authors should provide clean and marked versions where requested, ensuring that tracked changes and file metadata do not reveal their identities.

Revisions may be assessed by the editor, returned to the original reviewers, or referred to additional reviewers, depending on their extent and complexity. Further revision rounds may be necessary.

Authors should meet the stated revision deadline or request an extension. If no response is received after reasonable follow-up, the journal may close the submission.

11. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must withdraw from handling manuscripts where a significant conflict of interest exists.

Submissions by editors, editorial board members, journal staff, or their close associates must be managed by an independent editor. The individuals concerned must not select reviewers, participate in decisions, or access confidential review information beyond what is ordinarily available to authors.

Where necessary, an external editor will be appointed. Applicable handling arrangements will be disclosed in the published article.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by personal relationships, institutional pressure, sponsorship, or financial considerations.

12. Timeliness and Communication

MUKADIMAH aims to process submissions promptly while allowing sufficient time for careful editorial assessment and independent peer review.

The overall duration depends on the completeness of the submission, reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the extent of required revisions, and any ethical concerns requiring examination. Initial editorial screening, external peer review, author revisions, and production are separate stages.

Reviewers and authors will be informed of the deadlines applicable to their assignments. Requests for extensions should be submitted promptly to the handling editor.

Where reliable processing data are available, the journal will publish indicative timelines and review them periodically. These estimates are not guarantees of acceptance or publication by a particular date.

If substantial delays occur, the editorial office will inform authors of the reasons and the anticipated next steps. Authors may request a status update or submit a written withdrawal request if they do not wish to continue. Withdrawal should be confirmed by the journal before the manuscript is submitted elsewhere.

Acceptance does not guarantee immediate publication. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, and publication scheduling.

Estimated Editorial and Peer-Review Timeline

Stage

Estimated duration

Description

1. Initial editorial screening

2–4 weeks

Assessment of the complete submission for scope, originality, scholarly quality, ethical compliance, and readiness for external review. Preliminary amendments may be requested.

2. First-round peer review

2–4 weeks

Assessment by at least two independent reviewers, followed by an editorial decision. Securing suitable reviewers may require additional time.

3. Revisions

4–8 weeks

Authors revise the manuscript and prepare a point-by-point response. The duration depends on the extent of revisions, authors’ responsiveness, and any further clarification required.

4. Second-round peer review, if required

1–2 weeks

Reassessment of the revised manuscript and authors’ responses. This stage may be omitted if the editor can adequately assess the revisions.

5. Final decision

1–6 days

The editor evaluates the completed assessments and revised submission before communicating the final decision. This estimate begins once all necessary materials and reports have been received.

The estimates are indicative and do not guarantee acceptance or publication by a particular date. They exclude copyediting, proofreading, and publication scheduling. Authors will be informed of substantial delays and may contact the editorial office for a status update.

13. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they identify a material factual misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or evidence of bias.

Appeals must be submitted in writing, explain the grounds, and address the relevant editorial or reviewer comments. Disagreement with an unfavorable decision alone does not establish grounds for reversal.

Where practicable, an editor or adviser not responsible for the original decision will assess the appeal. Complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief should be directed to the publisher for independent handling.

Suspected manipulation of peer review or other misconduct will be addressed under the journal’s Allegations of Misconduct policy.

14. Reviewer Recognition and Policy Review

MUKADIMAH acknowledges the contribution of peer reviewers to scholarly quality. With their consent, reviewers may be recognized through certificates or periodic acknowledgments that do not identify the manuscripts they assessed.

Any recognition through an external service must preserve confidential information and the journal’s review model.

The journal will retain appropriate records of reviewer assignments, reports, correspondence, and decisions. This policy will be reviewed periodically to reflect developments in publication ethics and editorial practice.

COPE resources: