Peer Review Process

Sabiluna: Journal Education and Management

Peer Review Policy

Sabiluna: Journal Education and Management applies a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic relevance, and integrity of all published articles.

The peer review process aims to provide constructive academic evaluation, improve manuscript quality, and assist editors in making objective publication decisions.

The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which:

  1. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
  2. The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

This process is designed to ensure fairness, objectivity, and independence in manuscript evaluation.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team before being sent for external review.

The initial assessment evaluates:

  1. Compatibility with the journal's focus and scope;
  2. Academic relevance and originality;
  3. Research quality and methodological appropriateness;
  4. Compliance with author guidelines;
  5. Ethical considerations.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal requirements or fall outside the journal scope may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  1. Academic expertise related to the manuscript topic;
  2. Research experience and publication record;
  3. Independence from the authors;
  4. Absence of conflicts of interest.

The journal normally assigns at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript.

3. Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  1. Originality and significance of the research;
  2. Contribution to theoretical and practical knowledge;
  3. Clarity of research objectives;
  4. Adequacy of literature review;
  5. Appropriateness of methodology;
  6. Quality of analysis and interpretation;
  7. Logical consistency of conclusions;
  8. Academic writing quality;
  9. Relevance to the journal scope.

4. Editorial Decision

After receiving reviewer reports, the editor makes a publication decision.

Possible decisions include:

Accept
The manuscript is accepted without substantial modification.
Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited revisions before acceptance.
Major Revision
The manuscript requires significant improvement and may be reviewed again.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the academic or ethical standards required for publication.

The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

5. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision decisions must respond to reviewer comments systematically.

A revised manuscript should include:

  1. A revised version of the manuscript;
  2. A response letter explaining changes made;
  3. A justification for comments that cannot be addressed.

6. Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethics

Reviewers must:

  1. Treat manuscripts as confidential documents;
  2. Avoid sharing manuscript content with others;
  3. Provide objective and constructive comments;
  4. Declare conflicts of interest;
  5. Avoid using unpublished information for personal advantage.

7. Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the review process efficiently while maintaining academic quality.

The estimated timeline:

  1. Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks;
  2. Peer review process: 4–8 weeks;
  3. Revision and final decision: dependent on author response.