Peer Review Process

INTELLECT JOURNAL • EDITORIAL & PUBLICATION ETHICS

Peer Review Process

Independent evaluation, transparent editorial decisions, and research integrity

Intellect: Indonesian Journal of Learning and Technological Innovation is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal published by Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation), Indonesia. Its editorial process is designed to ensure rigorous, fair, and independent assessment of scholarly work in educational technology, learning innovation, and applied digital technologies for education.

This policy explains how manuscripts are screened, reviewed, revised, and decided upon. It should be read together with the journal's Author Guidelines, Reviewers Guideline, Publication Ethics, and related editorial policies.

1. Scope and Applicability

The journal considers original research articles, review articles, design and development research articles, and methodological or technical research articles, as defined in its Manuscript Types policy. All accepted scholarly articles must complete an appropriate editorial assessment and independent peer review before publication.

Manuscripts may be written in English or Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) in accordance with the current Author Guidelines. English-language titles and abstracts, bilingual abstract requirements, and other manuscript-preparation rules follow those guidelines. Language choice does not exempt a submission from the same scholarly and ethical standards.

2. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

Submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the editorial office and a designated editor for completeness, suitability, and readiness for external review. Screening is not a substitute for peer review and may result in a request for technical corrections or a decision not to proceed to external assessment.

• Scope and relevance: a clear educational problem and contribution consistent with the journal's stated Focus and Scope.
• Scholarly quality: originality, significance, clarity of research objectives, appropriate methodology, and evidence supporting the conclusions.
• Manuscript compliance: appropriate article type, journal template, bilingual abstracts, IEEE references, complete metadata, and a suitably anonymised review manuscript.
• Ethical compliance: authorship and originality declarations, disclosure of competing interests and relevant AI use, research permissions, and protection of human participants or sensitive educational data where applicable.
• Similarity screening: editorial examination supported, where appropriate, by software such as Turnitin. Similarity scores are screening indicators, not automatic findings of plagiarism.

A manuscript may be declined at this stage when it falls outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, contains material deficiencies, or presents concerns that make peer review inappropriate. Authors are informed of the editorial outcome through an authorised journal communication channel.

3. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter and methodological expertise. Reviewers are selected by the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief and are not members of the editorial team responsible for handling the manuscript. Reviewer selection takes account of expertise, impartiality, availability, and any declared competing interests.

Editors retain full responsibility for verifying reviewer suitability and identity. Any suggested reviewer names, if provided by authors or other parties, do not bind the journal and are subject to independent editorial checks. A third or additional reviewer may be appointed if assessments substantially differ, important specialist expertise is missing, or further independent evidence is required.

Reviewers must disclose relevant financial, personal, institutional, professional, or academic conflicts before accepting an invitation. A reviewer is not appointed, or is replaced, when a conflict cannot be managed appropriately.

4. Double-Anonymous Review and Confidentiality

Intellect uses a double-anonymous peer-review model: the authors' identities are not disclosed to reviewers and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors. The editorial office retains the information necessary for legitimate editorial administration and decision-making.

• Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgments, identifiable file properties where practicable, and other unnecessary identifying information from the review manuscript; complete author details are provided separately through OJS metadata.
• Reviewers must not intentionally seek to discover author identities or disclose their own identities to authors, and must not contact authors directly.
• Manuscripts, reviewer reports, supplementary files, and editorial correspondence are confidential. They must not be copied, circulated, uploaded to unauthorised services, or used for private or competitive benefit.
• Supplementary materials necessary to assess reported findings may be supplied to reviewers under the same confidentiality and privacy safeguards. Access to identifiable participant data is restricted unless there is a justified and authorised need.

The journal does not ordinarily publish signed reviewer reports or disclose reviewers' identities. If a confidentiality issue or accidental identification occurs, the handling editor determines suitable corrective action.

5. Criteria for Scholarly Evaluation

Reviewers assess each submission according to its research design and manuscript type, not by a rigid checklist of identical methods. The principal criteria are:

• Fit and contribution: significance for educational technology, learning innovation, or education-related digital systems.
• Originality and literature: a clear research gap and appropriate engagement with relevant, current scholarship.
• Methods and evidence: justified research design, reliable instruments or datasets, transparent analysis, and sound evaluation.
• Results and discussion: accurate reporting, appropriate comparisons, cautious interpretation, and acknowledgement of limitations.
• Ethics and reproducibility: research approval or exemption where applicable, informed consent, data protection, and sufficient reporting for critical appraisal.
• Communication: clear writing, informative tables and figures, accurate references, and compliance with the journal's manuscript requirements.

For AI, software, and system-development studies, reviewers assess technical quality and a meaningful contribution to an identifiable educational problem. For systematic or scoping reviews, the search, selection, synthesis, and reporting methods should be transparent and appropriate.

6. Editorial Workflow

The following stages describe the journal's standard process. A manuscript may leave the process at an earlier stage following a substantiated editorial decision.

7. Reviewer Reports and Editorial Recommendations

Reviewers provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments identifying major scientific concerns, minor improvements, and the reasons underlying their recommendations. Substantive comments intended to help authors improve the manuscript are communicated through the editorial process; sensitive integrity concerns may be submitted confidentially to the editor.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Editors consider the substance and strength of each report, not only the number of favourable or unfavourable recommendations. Editors may ask reviewers for clarification or obtain an additional assessment before reaching a decision.

8. Editorial Decisions and Manuscript Revisions

Following editorial evaluation, a manuscript may receive one of the following outcomes, subject to the decision options configured in OJS:

• Accept: the manuscript meets the scholarly and ethical requirements for publication, subject to final production checks.
• Minor revision: limited improvements are needed, which the editor may verify without another external review.
• Major revision / resubmit for review: substantial scientific or methodological issues require author revision and may warrant another round of external assessment.
• Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, scope, or ethical requirements.

Authors invited to revise must submit a clear point-by-point response and a revised manuscript showing how each substantive concern was addressed. They may explain respectfully why a particular suggestion was not adopted. A revision invitation does not guarantee acceptance; the editor may require further work or decline the manuscript if material concerns remain unresolved.

The Editor-in-Chief ordinarily makes the final decision, with advice from handling editors, reviewers, or Editorial Board members as appropriate. Where the Editor-in-Chief or another handling editor has a relevant conflict of interest, that person must withdraw; an independent editor is assigned responsibility for the affected manuscript and its final decision in accordance with the Conflict of Interest Policy.

9. Publication Ethics, Research Misconduct, and AI

Authors, reviewers, and editors must comply with the journal's Publication Ethics and related policies on plagiarism, research misconduct, conflicts of interest, and responsible use of AI. Credible concerns are examined fairly and proportionately, with an opportunity for appropriate author clarification. An editor may suspend editorial evaluation while a material concern is assessed.

Suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarised content, citation or peer-review manipulation, unauthorised data use, or other integrity concerns must be reported to the handling editor. Reviewers must not conduct unauthorised investigations. The journal follows its Research Misconduct and associated editorial procedures, rather than treating a similarity score or unverified allegation as a final finding.

10. Timeliness, Author Communication, and Appeals

The journal endeavours to conduct editorial assessment and peer review as efficiently as scholarly quality permits. The duration may vary because of reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and further checks. No fixed review duration, acceptance date, or publication date is guaranteed.

Authors are informed of editorial decisions and revision requirements through OJS or other authorised journal communication channels. If substantial delays occur, authors may contact the editorial office for a status update or request withdrawal in accordance with the journal's procedures.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they can identify a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or unmanaged conflict of interest. An appeal must present specific reasons and supporting evidence; disagreement with critical comments alone does not require reversal. Appeals are handled under the Complaints and Appeals Policy, with independent handling where a relevant conflict exists.

11. Fees, Acceptance, and Issue Assignment

Intellect charges a single Article Processing Charge (APC) of IDR 400,000 per accepted article under its current Author Fees Policy. Payment is requested only after formal acceptance. There is no paid fast-track service, no guaranteed acceptance, and no separate publication or page charge. APC payment, waivers if applicable, and any editorial or reviewer honoraria have no influence on reviewer selection, recommendations, or editorial decisions.

After acceptance, an article proceeds through copyediting, proofreading, and final metadata checks. The Editor-in-Chief assigns it to an appropriate forthcoming issue in accordance with the journal's biannual June–December publication schedule. Acceptance does not guarantee a particular issue. Submission, review, acceptance, and first online publication dates are recorded according to the actual events; editorial records must not be altered merely to fit a target issue period.

12. Related Policies and Reference Standards

This process must be applied together with the relevant journal policies, which provide the more detailed rules for manuscript preparation and publication ethics:

Author Guidelines  •  Reviewers Guideline  •  Publication Ethics  •  Plagiarism Policy  •  Author Fees  •  Focus and Scope  •  Contact

Relevant international guidance: Scopus Content Policy and Selection, COPE–DOAJ–OASPA–WAME Principles of Transparency, COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, and ICMJE Recommendations. These resources inform this journal policy; their citation does not imply indexing, endorsement, or organisational membership.