Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to GENIUS: Indonesian Journal of Early Childhood Education must follow the focus, scope, and author guidelines of this journal. The submitted manuscripts must address scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism contents. All authors are suggested to use plagiarism detection software to do the similarity checking. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal by using a Plagiarism Checker software. 

The research article submitted to this journal will be peer-reviewed at least 2 (two) or more expert reviewers. The articles will be sent to the peer reviewers to get Double-Blind Peer Review Process and will be returned to the authors to revise. The reviewers give scientific valuable comments improving the contents of the manuscript.

The final decision of articles acceptance will be made by Editors according to reviewers comments. Publication of accepted articles including the sequence of published articles will be made by Editor in Chief by considering the sequence of accepted date and geographical distribution of authors as well as the thematic issue.

Peer Review Guidelines

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

All submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary checks by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor:

  • Alignment with journal focus and scope

  • Structural completeness and adherence to Author Guidelines

  • Similarity/Plagiarism check (Turnitin)

  • Ethical compliance documentation (if applicable)

  • Language readability

  • Quality of abstract and references

Manuscripts may be:

  • Sent back for technical revision

  • Rejected at the desk-review stage

  • Proceeded to peer review

Step 2 — Reviewer Assignment (1 week)

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

Reviewer selection is based on:

  • Field of expertise

  • Absence of conflict of interest

  • Reviewer performance record

  • Geographical diversity (international reviewers encouraged)

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

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using a structured review form.
They may provide:

  1. Comments for the authors

  2. Confidential comments for the editor

Reviewers assess the manuscript using the criteria in Section 5.

Review outcomes may be:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revisions Required

  • Major Revisions Required

  • Reject

Step 4 — Editorial Decision (after review reports)

The Editor-in-Chief synthesizes reviewer comments and makes a decision.
In case of conflicting reviewer recommendations, the editor may:

  • Seek a third reviewer

  • Conduct an additional editorial evaluation

  • Request clarifications from reviewers

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

For revisions:

  • Authors must submit a Revised Manuscript.

  • Authors must prepare a Response to Reviewers Document, showing:

    • Clear, point-by-point responses

    • Location of changes

    • Justifications for any unaddressed suggestions

Failure to revise adequately may result in rejection.

Step 6 — Second Review (if required)

If the changes are substantial, the revised manuscript may be sent back to:

  • The original reviewers, or

  • A new reviewer with relevant expertise.

Step 7 — Final Editorial Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on:

  • Scientific merit

  • Alignment with journal focus

  • Consistency with ethical and publication standards

  • Contribution to thematic relevance in current issues

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

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

  • Language editing

  • Technical editing

  • Layout formatting

  • Final proofing by authors

  • DOI assignment