Peer Review Process

1. Review Model

Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal MATHEdunesa undergo a double-blind peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the evaluation to ensure objectivity and fairness. The process involves the collaboration of authors, editors, section editors, and reviewers.

2. Review Stages

The editorial workflow consists of six stages: Submission, Initial Check, Peer Review, Final Check, Editing & Proofreading, and Publication. The flowchart and the estimated duration of each stage are available on the Manuscript Timeline page.

  • Initial check. The editor checks whether the manuscript fits the journal’s focus and scope, complies with the author guidelines, and meets the similarity requirement. Manuscripts that do not meet these standards are returned to the authors or declined.
  • Peer review. Manuscripts that pass the initial check are sent to expert reviewers for double-blind assessment. Authors may be asked to revise the manuscript in one or more rounds.
  • Final check. The editor verifies that the authors have adequately addressed all reviewer comments and makes the final editorial decision.
  • Editing and proofreading. Accepted manuscripts go through copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading before publication.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate each manuscript using the Article Assessment Form, which is completed directly in the journal’s online system (OJS). The form covers:

  • originality and novelty;
  • scholarly contribution to mathematics education;
  • relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
  • theoretical grounding and methodological rigor;
  • quality of analysis and discussion;
  • clarity of writing and adequacy of references.

Reviewers also submit a recommendation and comments for the authors and the editor through the same system.

4. Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field and subject area of the manuscript, in line with the journal’s Focus and Scope. They must have a record of relevant scholarly work and no conflict of interest with the authors. The list of reviewers is available on the Peer-Reviewers page.

5. Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent reviewers. A third reviewer may be invited when the recommendations of the first two differ substantially.

6. Review Timeline

Reviewers are asked to complete each evaluation within 1–4 weeks. Including revision rounds, the peer review stage typically takes 6–12 weeks, and the total time from submission to publication readiness is approximately 11–23 weeks. Details of each stage are available on the Manuscript Timeline page.

7. Similarity Check

All manuscripts are screened for similarity during the initial check, following the procedure, software, and similarity threshold described in the Plagiarism Policy. Manuscripts that exceed the threshold are returned to the authors for revision or declined.

8. Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are made by the editor based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the editor’s own assessment of the manuscript’s quality, relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, and compliance with ethical standards. Reviewers provide recommendations only. The Editor makes the final decision.

The decision categories are:

  • Accept Submission. The manuscript is accepted and proceeds to the final check, editing, and proofreading.
  • Revisions Required. The manuscript needs revision. Authors submit the revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. The editor checks the revision and may send it back to the reviewers.
  • Resubmit for Review. The manuscript needs substantial revision, and the revised version will go through a new round of peer review.
  • Decline Submission. The manuscript is rejected and the process ends. Authors are informed of the reasons.

When the reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially, the editor may invite an additional reviewer or consult the section editor before deciding. Authors are notified of the decision through the journal’s online system, together with the reviewers’ comments (anonymized).

Authors who disagree with a decision may submit a written appeal to the editorial office, stating the reasons and responding to the reviewers’ comments. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the appeal, and the decision after the appeal is final.

9. Confidentiality and Ethics

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose any information about a manuscript to anyone other than those involved in its evaluation, and must not use unpublished material for personal advantage. The double-blind system keeps the identities of authors and reviewers concealed throughout the process.

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest and decline the review if they cannot provide an objective assessment. Reviewers are also expected to give constructive, respectful, and unbiased comments, and to report any suspected misconduct to the editor. The journal follows the principles of COPE. See Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest, and Research Misconduct.