Review Process Policy

Policy Statement

Jurnal Literasi Pendidikan Fisika (JLPF) applies an editorial and peer-review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts in Physics and Physics Education.

The review process is intended to support fair, objective, confidential, and constructive evaluation. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, the reviewers' assessments, its relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and compliance with applicable publication ethics standards.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic requirements for further consideration. The screening may include:

• relevance to the aims and scope of JLPF;
• compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript template;
• completeness of the manuscript and required submission information;
• originality and potential overlap with existing publications;
• clarity of the research objectives and overall manuscript structure; and
• compliance with relevant research and publication ethics requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for improvement or rejected before external peer review. Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance.

2. Peer-Review Model

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening may be sent to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area, research methodology, or disciplinary context of the submission.

JLPF applies the peer-review model specified in its Peer Review Policy. Authors should prepare their manuscripts and review files in accordance with the journal's instructions to support an impartial evaluation process.

The review process is intended to provide independent scholarly assessment and constructive feedback. Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not determine acceptance automatically.

3. Reviewer Selection

The editor selects reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript's topic, research design, methods, or contribution to Physics and Physics Education. Reviewer selection considers subject knowledge, research experience, and the ability to provide an independent assessment.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. Individuals whose relationships or interests could compromise their impartiality should decline the review invitation or inform the editor before proceeding.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide clear, evidence-based, and constructive feedback. Depending on the type and scope of the manuscript, the assessment may consider:

• originality, significance, and contribution to knowledge in Physics or Physics Education;
• relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
• clarity of the research problem, objectives, and theoretical or conceptual framework;
• appropriateness and rigor of the research design and methodology;
• validity of data analysis and interpretation of findings;
• consistency between results, discussion, and conclusions;
• engagement with relevant and current scholarly literature;
• quality of the writing, figures, tables, equations, and references; and
• research ethics, data integrity, and transparency, where applicable.

Reviewers should distinguish major concerns affecting the validity or contribution of a manuscript from minor issues involving presentation, clarity, or formatting.

5. Review Recommendations

Reviewers provide comments and a recommendation to assist the editor in reaching an informed decision. Depending on the journal's available decision categories, recommendations may include:

• Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to the editor's final assessment and any necessary editorial adjustments.
• Minor Revision: limited revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
• Major Revision: substantial revisions, clarification, additional analysis, or methodological improvements are required.
• Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or has limitations that cannot adequately be resolved through revision.

These recommendations are advisory. The editor may seek additional reviews or further expert advice when necessary, particularly when assessments differ substantially or important concerns remain unresolved.

6. Editorial Decisions

The editor makes the final decision after considering the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's scholarly contribution, its relevance to JLPF, and compliance with editorial and ethical requirements.

Possible decisions include acceptance, a request for revision, or rejection. The editor may reject a manuscript despite favorable reviewer recommendations if substantive concerns remain. Likewise, a favorable review does not guarantee acceptance.

Editorial decisions and relevant reviewer comments are communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's submission system or another official communication channel.

7. Revision and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts should respond carefully to the editor's and reviewers' comments. A point-by-point response should explain how each comment has been addressed.

If an author does not adopt a particular suggestion, the response should provide a clear scholarly justification. Authors should also identify the corresponding changes made in the revised manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or reassessed by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Further revision may be requested when necessary. The final decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

8. Confidentiality and Research Ethics

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must provide professional and evidence-based comments, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other potential ethical violations.

Any concerns about research or publication misconduct will be handled in accordance with the journal's relevant policies, including its Plagiarism Policy and Allegation of Research Misconduct policy.

Editors and reviewers should also protect manuscript confidentiality when using digital tools, including generative AI systems, in accordance with the journal's applicable policies and instructions.

9. Review Timeline

The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional expertise, and the time required for author revisions.

JLPF seeks to process submissions as efficiently as possible while maintaining the quality and integrity of the review process. Any review timelines communicated by the journal should be understood as estimates rather than guarantees of a specific decision date.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should submit a reasoned explanation to the editorial office. The appeal should identify specific factual errors, misunderstandings, or procedural concerns that may have affected the decision.

Appeals will be assessed by the editor or an appropriate editorial representative. Where feasible, an individual who was not directly responsible for the original decision may be asked to review the appeal.

An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance. Complaints concerning the review process will be considered fairly and confidentially, in accordance with the journal's applicable policies.