Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to GENIUS: Indonesian Journal of Early Childhood Education must strictly adhere to the journal’s focus, scope, and author guidelines. Submissions are expected to demonstrate clear scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the field of early childhood education.

All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism and unethical publication practices. Authors are strongly encouraged to conduct similarity checks using reliable plagiarism detection software prior to submission. The editorial team independently verifies all submissions using Turnitin or equivalent tools. Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 30% (excluding references and properly cited quotations) will be rejected at the initial screening stage.

All submissions are subject to a rigorous double-blind peer review process, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure objectivity and fairness. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.

The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance is made by the editor-in-chief, based on reviewers’ reports and editorial judgment. The publication order of accepted articles is determined by considering the date of acceptance, thematic coherence, and geographical diversity of contributing authors.

Detailed Peer Review Workflow

Step 1 — Initial Editorial Screening (1–2 weeks)

All submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary evaluation conducted by the editor-in-chief or managing editor. This stage ensures that submissions meet the minimum requirements before entering the peer review process.

The screening includes:

  • Alignment with the journal’s focus and scope
  • Compliance with Author Guidelines and structural completeness
  • Similarity/plagiarism assessment using Turnitin
  • Ethical compliance (e.g., informed consent, ethical clearance, if applicable)
  • Language clarity and academic readability
  • Quality and coherence of abstract and references

Based on this assessment, manuscripts may be

  • Returned to authors for technical or formatting revisions
  • Rejected at the desk-review stage
  • Advanced to the peer review stage

Step 2 — Reviewer Assignment (approximately 1 week)

Each eligible manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in areas such as early childhood education, pedagogy, child development, educational technology, sociology of childhood, curriculum studies, or related disciplines.

Reviewer selection is based on:

  • Subject-matter expertise
  • Absence of conflicts of interest
  • Previous reviewing performance and timeliness
  • Consideration of international representation to ensure global perspectives

Step 3 — Double-Blind Peer Review (2–4 weeks)

The journal implements a double-blind peer review system to ensure impartiality. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using a standardized review form.

Reviewers are expected to provide:

  • Constructive and detailed comments for authors
  • Confidential recommendations to the editor (if necessary)

Manuscripts are evaluated based on:

  • Originality and contribution to the field
  • Methodological rigor
  • Theoretical grounding
  • Clarity of presentation and organization
  • Relevance to early childhood education

Possible review outcomes include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions Required
  • Major Revisions Required
  • Reject

Step 4 — Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief synthesizes all reviewer reports and makes an informed decision.

In cases of conflicting reviewer recommendations, the editor may:

  • Assign an additional (third) reviewer
  • Conduct an independent editorial assessment
  • Request clarification from the reviewers

Step 5 — Author Revision Process (2–4 weeks)

Authors receiving revision decisions are required to:

  • Submit a revised manuscript addressing all reviewer comments
  • Provide a detailed response to reviewers document, including:
    • Point-by-point responses
    • Clear indication of revisions (with page/line references)
    • Justifications for any suggestions not implemented

Failure to adequately address reviewer comments may result in rejection.

Step 6 — Second Round Review (if required)

For manuscripts requiring substantial revisions, the revised version may be

  • Returned to the original reviewers, or
  • Evaluated by a new reviewer with appropriate expertise

Step 7 — Final Editorial Evaluation

The editor-in-chief makes the final decision based on:

  • Scientific quality and originality
  • Consistency with the journal’s scope and standards
  • Compliance with ethical publishing practices
  • Contribution to current thematic or special issues

Step 8 — Copyediting, Layout, and Proofreading (1–2 weeks)

Accepted manuscripts undergo the final production process, including:

  • Professional language editing
  • Technical and reference editing
  • Layout and formatting according to journal style
  • Author proofreading and final approval
  • DOI registration through Crossref

Additional Notes on Publication Ethics

The journal adheres to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics, including guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any form of academic misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or redundant publication, will result in immediate rejection and may lead to further action.