Review & Publication Process

Review & Publication Process

 

 

The following process-level information is intended to help authors better know what to expect during the review and publication process. Questions this page answers include:

  • What are the steps in the review and publication process?
  • What is the review and publication timeline?
  • Who can I contact to find out where my manuscript is in the review or publication process?

What are the steps in the review & publication process?

Manuscripts submitted to JPG: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru double blind peer-review process. This means neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. Editors know the identities of both parties but never disclose this information.

The following outlines the key steps of the review process:

Step 1: Pre-Review

Once a manuscript is received, it is assigned a primary editor who manages all aspects of the process. As part of the pre-review, the editor ensures the work…

  • is suitable and aligned with the aims and scope of JPG; 
  • is fully anonymized, containing no mention of authors’ names and affiliated institutions or other identifiable information and that files contain no identifying metadata;
  • meets the journal’s word count limits;
  • generally adheres to the journal’s style guidelines.
The editor also checks the conflict of interest statement and ensures that IRB protocols are included for studies involving human subjects.

 

At this point, the primary editor may advance the manuscript to the review stage, return it to the author(s) to address minor problems or concerns, or in some instances issue a desk-reject. A desk-reject indicates that the manuscript is currently unpublishable due to significant issues with organization, clarity, or argument, that it is pitched for the wrong audience, or that it is not well-situated in the literature. All potential desk-rejected manuscripts are read by multiple editors, who must reach consensus prior to rendering this decision.

Step 2: Review

After successful pre-review, the primary editor assigns a minimum of three peer reviewers who have indicated interest and expertise in the subject matter and/or research methodologies. Reviewers are provided a list of review criteria and a template to guide their reviews. They are also asked to make an initial decision using the four decision options: Accept; Minor Revisions; Major Revisions; Reject.

  • Accept indicates a well-developed and -written manuscript suitable for publication as-is following final copyediting.
  • Minor Revisions indicates a solid manuscript that could be improved with slight revision to organization, clarity, argument, and/or other components; this recommendation typically doesn't trigger re-review but may in some instances. 
  • Major Revisions (aka Revise and Resubmit) indicates a manuscript that requires significant revision to organization, clarity, argument, and/or other components; this recommendation automatically triggers re-review. Whenever possible, we invite earlier-round reviewers to re-review manuscripts following authors' revisions since they are best suited to gauge whether the authors sufficiently addressed initial concerns.
  • Reject indicates a manuscript currently unsuitable for publication because, among other things, it lacks organization, clarity, argument, or other components, is pitched for the wrong audience, or is not situated in the literature. Multiple editors read rejected manuscripts and come to consensus before this decision is rendered.

Step 3: Initial Decision

The primary editor reviews all comments and initial recommendations from the peer reviewers, considers reviewers comments in light of their own read of the manuscript, and makes an initial decision using the four decision options described above. In cases where reviews lack detail or conflict, the primary editor might seek additional reviewers or ask other members of the editorial team to review the manuscript. The decision, along with the reviewers’ comments, are shared with the authors.

Step 4: Re-Review (required for Major Revisions)

Once authors revise and resubmit manuscripts requiring Major Revisions, the manuscript, along with the authors’ cover letter detailing revisions, is sent back to the original reviewers whenever possible. In some cases, the editor may solicit additional reviewers. Guided by the authors’ responses to the reviewers’ initial feedback, reviewers consider whether the changes improve the manuscript sufficiently to warrant publication. The editor once again provides feedback to authors and renders a publication decision.

Step 5: Final Decision

After one round of revision and resubmission, the primary editor typically makes a final publication decision. The outcome will be Accept, Accept with Minor Revisions, or Reject. None of these decisions require re-review.

Step 6: Copyediting

Manuscripts accepted for publication are then copyedited, approved by the authors, and then published in JPG.

What is the review & publication timeline?

The timeline for publishing an article in TIA is highly variable and dependent on several factors not easily predicted. Typical time estimates of each stage of the review and publishing processes are shown in the figure below. In best case scenarios (i.e. the sum of the bolded times in the figure), the total time from submission to publication can be less than 6 months. In more complicated (and typical) scenarios (e.g. revise and resubmit), it can take 12-18 months.

*Additional processes depending on reviewers’ and editors’ recommendations.

Who can I contact to find out where my manuscript is in the review or publication process?

If you're curious about your manuscript and haven't heard from your assigned editor in a while, you can email them from the contact page. If you don't know who your assigned editor is, select the "Editorial team" option and one of the editors will respond within 1-3 business days