Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Lontara: Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Research applies a double-blind peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and ethical integrity of published manuscripts. Under this system, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

All editorial decisions are based on the academic quality and relevance of the manuscript. Decisions are made without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, ethnicity, political views, or other personal characteristics of the authors.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system. The manuscript must comply with the journal’s focus and scope, author guidelines, manuscript template, ethical requirements, and submission checklist.

To support double-blind peer review, authors must remove their names, affiliations, email addresses, acknowledgments, and other identifying information from the manuscript file. Author information must be entered separately into the OJS metadata.

2. Administrative and Technical Check

The editorial team examines each submission to confirm that:

• the manuscript file can be opened and reviewed;
• the required metadata have been completed;
• the manuscript follows the journal template;
• the manuscript is written in Indonesian or English;
• an English abstract is included;
• the references follow APA 7th Edition;
• the manuscript has been anonymized; and
• all required declarations and supporting documents have been provided.

Manuscripts that do not meet the administrative or technical requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further evaluation.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor conducts an initial evaluation of the manuscript. This screening considers:

• relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
• originality and academic significance;
• clarity of the research problem and objectives;
• appropriateness of the research or analytical method;
• quality of academic writing and organization;
• compliance with ethical requirements; and
• potential contribution to educational knowledge or practice.

A manuscript may be rejected without external review when it is clearly outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient academic quality, does not follow the author guidelines, contains serious ethical concerns, or does not present a meaningful scholarly contribution.

The initial editorial screening is normally completed within seven working days, although the process may take longer depending on the number of submissions and editorial availability.

4. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are checked using Turnitin before being sent for peer review.

The journal generally requires a similarity score of no more than 20%, excluding the reference list and properly presented direct quotations. However, the similarity percentage is not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision. The editorial team examines the sources, patterns, and context of similarity.

A manuscript may be returned for revision or rejected when it contains plagiarism, excessive text recycling, unattributed material, duplicate publication, fabricated references, or other forms of academic misconduct, regardless of the numerical similarity score.

The journal may conduct an additional similarity check after revision and before publication.

5. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening and similarity assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject;
• knowledge of the research method or analytical approach;
• research and publication experience;
• professional and academic competence;
• availability to complete the review; and
• absence of conflicts of interest.

The editorial team avoids assigning reviewers who have personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic relationships that could affect the impartiality of the review.

6. Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers receive an anonymized manuscript and are not informed of the authors’ identities. Authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript objectively, confidentially, and constructively. The evaluation may address:

• relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
• originality and novelty;
• clarity of the research problem and objectives;
• adequacy of the theoretical and literature foundations;
• appropriateness and transparency of the method;
• validity and clarity of the results;
• depth and accuracy of the discussion;
• consistency of the conclusion with the findings;
• academic and practical contribution;
• ethical compliance;
• quality of language and organization; and
• accuracy and relevance of citations and references.

Reviewers should provide clear reasons for their recommendations and offer constructive comments that can help authors improve their manuscripts.

7. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content without authorization.

Editors and reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts to external generative artificial intelligence systems or other digital services that may store, process, reproduce, or reuse confidential content.

Information obtained through the peer-review process must not be used for personal, academic, commercial, or professional advantage.

8. Review Period

Reviewers are generally asked to complete their evaluations within 21 to 28 days.

The review period may be extended when:

• the manuscript requires highly specialized expertise;
• an invited reviewer declines the assignment;
• additional reviewers must be appointed;
• technical or ethical clarification is required; or
• the manuscript requires more than one review round.

The stated review period is a target rather than a guarantee.

9. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, each reviewer may recommend one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision. Minor editorial or formatting corrections may still be required.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited corrections, clarification, language improvement, reference adjustment, or minor methodological and interpretive revisions.

Major Revision

The manuscript has academic potential but requires substantial revision to its theoretical foundation, method, analysis, results, discussion, organization, or presentation.

Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires extensive revision and must undergo another complete round of peer review before an editorial decision can be made.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication because of serious problems involving scope, originality, academic quality, method, ethical compliance, evidence, interpretation, or scholarly contribution.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision may differ from an individual reviewer’s recommendation when justified by the overall evidence and editorial assessment.

10. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports and makes an editorial decision.

When the reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may:

• assess the manuscript and reports independently;
• request clarification from the reviewers;
• invite an additional reviewer;
• ask the authors to address the conflicting concerns; or
• make a reasoned editorial decision based on the manuscript’s overall quality.

The final decision is based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor’s assessment, the authors’ responses, ethical considerations, and the manuscript’s relevance to the journal.

11. Revision by Authors

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:

• a revised manuscript; and
• a detailed response to reviewers.

The response document should explain how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Authors should clearly identify the changes made in the revised manuscript. When authors disagree with a reviewer’s recommendation, they must provide a respectful and academically justified explanation.

The usual revision periods are:

• Minor Revision: 7 to 14 days
• Major Revision: 14 to 30 days

Authors who require additional time should contact the editorial team before the revision deadline.

Failure to submit a revision within the specified period without prior communication may result in the submission being closed or treated as a new submission.

12. Further Review

A revised manuscript may be assessed by the assigned editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to additional reviewers.

More than one round of review may be required when:

• important reviewer comments have not been fully addressed;
• substantial changes have been made to the manuscript;
• new methodological or ethical concerns arise; or
• the editor requires additional expert assessment.

Acceptance is not guaranteed merely because authors have submitted a revised manuscript.

13. Final Acceptance

A manuscript is accepted only when the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor determines that it:

• meets the journal’s academic standards;
• has adequately addressed the reviewers’ comments;
• complies with the journal’s ethical policies;
• follows the required manuscript format;
• contains appropriate citations and references; and
• is suitable for publication in the journal.

A formal acceptance decision is communicated through the OJS system.

14. Copyediting and Production

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, metadata verification, and final production.

The editorial team may correct grammar, punctuation, consistency, reference formatting, and layout without changing the meaning of the article. Authors may be asked to review and approve the final proof before publication.

Authors are responsible for checking names, affiliations, tables, figures, references, and other essential information during proofreading. Substantial changes to the research content are generally not permitted after acceptance unless approved by the editor.

15. Post-Acceptance Similarity and Integrity Check

Before publication, the editorial team may conduct a final similarity and integrity assessment, particularly when the manuscript has undergone substantial revision.

The journal reserves the right to delay or cancel publication if plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, manipulated references, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other serious ethical problems are identified after acceptance.

16. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by publication fees, personal relationships, institutional interests, sponsorship, advertising, or commercial considerations.

Payment of any applicable publication or production charge does not guarantee acceptance and does not influence the peer-review process or editorial decision.

17. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity.

A reviewer should decline an assignment when:

• there is a personal or professional relationship with an author;
• there is direct academic competition;
• there is recent collaboration with an author;
• there is a financial or institutional interest in the research; or
• any other circumstance may reasonably create bias.

When an editor has a conflict of interest, responsibility for the manuscript must be transferred to another qualified editor.

18. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual, procedural, ethical, or academic error affected the decision.

An appeal must:

• be submitted in writing;
• identify the manuscript clearly;
• explain the grounds for the appeal;
• provide relevant evidence; and
• remain professional and respectful.

Disagreement with a reviewer’s academic judgment alone is not normally sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Appeals and complaints are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor who was not directly involved in the original decision when possible. The outcome of the appeal is communicated to the author after an appropriate review.

19. Expected Overall Timeline

The journal aims to complete the editorial and peer-review process within approximately 6 to 10 weeks. However, the actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revision rounds, and the responsiveness of the authors.

The journal prioritizes the quality, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of the evaluation process over speed.