Peer Review Process

J+PLUS UNESA is committed to upholding high academic standards through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo the following stages before an editorial decision is reached.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal’s basic requirements, including:

• Alignment with the journal’s focus and scope, particularly Nonformal Education and related fields.
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines, including manuscript structure, formatting, length, and reference requirements.
• Completeness of the required submission documents, such as the originality statement, similarity-check report, and ethical clearance where applicable.
• Results of the plagiarism or similarity check using Turnitin or an equivalent tool. Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 20% are returned to the authors for revision before proceeding to peer review.

Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected at this stage. The initial screening generally takes 1–2 weeks from the date of submission. Manuscripts that satisfy the screening criteria proceed to the double-blind peer-review process.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

J+PLUS applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.

The review process follows these principles:

• Identifying information, including author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and file metadata, is removed from the manuscript before it is sent to reviewers.
• Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.
• Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor based on their academic competence, relevant expertise, and the absence of conflicts of interest.
• Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:
  1. Originality and novelty of the contribution.
  2. Academic significance and relevance to Nonformal Education and related fields.
  3. Methodological rigor, including the appropriateness of the research design, instruments, and data analysis.
  4. Clarity and coherence of the arguments, as well as the quality of the discussion in relation to relevant literature.
  5. Adequacy and quality of references, together with compliance with academic writing conventions.

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Reconsider after major revisions
• Reject

Reviewers are also expected to report any suspected ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or duplicate submission, to the editor in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics policy.

3. Reconciliation of Reviewer Recommendations

The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor evaluates the reviewers’ recommendations and determines the appropriate course of action.

• When the reviewers reach a consistent recommendation, the editor proceeds with the editorial decision.
• When the reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, such as acceptance and rejection, the manuscript may be assigned to a third independent reviewer for further assessment.
• The final decision takes into account the overall quality and consistency of the reviews, the manuscript’s scholarly contribution, and the journal’s editorial standards.

The Editor-in-Chief retains the final authority to make editorial decisions and may seek additional expert opinions when necessary.

4. Editorial Decision

Following the peer-review process, the Editor-in-Chief communicates the editorial decision to the corresponding author through OJS.

The possible decisions are:

• Accepted
• Minor revisions required
• Major revisions required
• Rejected

Authors requested to revise their manuscripts must submit the revised version within the specified deadline, together with a point-by-point response addressing the reviewers’ comments.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation before a final decision is made.

5. Review Timeline

J+PLUS does not guarantee a fixed or expedited review schedule, as the journal prioritizes the quality, fairness, and thoroughness of the review process.

The following timeline serves as a general estimate:

The overall process from submission to the initial editorial decision generally takes approximately 6–12 weeks. However, the actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds required.

6. Reviewer Guidelines and Recognition

J+PLUS expects reviewers to contribute to the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing by adhering to the following guidelines:

• Reviewers should complete their evaluations within 2–3 weeks of accepting an invitation.
• Reviewers who are unable to complete the review within the specified period should notify the editor promptly.
• Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting or conducting a review.
• All review reports and manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents and must not be shared or discussed outside the editorial process.
• Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback to support the improvement of submitted manuscripts.

J+PLUS acknowledges the valuable contributions of its reviewers. Reviewer names may be published on the journal’s [Reviewers] page for each volume, unless a reviewer requests that their identity remain confidential.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to challenge an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

An appeal must:

• Clearly identify the manuscript concerned.
• Explain the grounds for reconsideration.
• Provide relevant scholarly arguments or evidence supporting the appeal.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editorial Board or designated members of the editorial team. The journal provides a response within a reasonable timeframe, in accordance with its [Publication Ethics] policy.

8. Confidentiality and Data Protection

All manuscripts submitted to J+PLUS, together with their associated data and review reports, are treated as confidential materials throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

Editors and reviewers must not use, disclose, or share unpublished information obtained through the review process for purposes other than manuscript evaluation. The journal is committed to protecting the confidentiality of authors, reviewers, and submitted research materials in accordance with applicable COPE guidelines and the journal’s Publication Ethics policy.