Peer Review Process

EQUALS: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This process aims to maintain objectivity, ensure scholarly quality, and ensure that publication decisions are based on the quality and relevance of the submitted manuscripts.

Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the EQUALS online submission system in Open Journal Systems (OJS). Manuscripts must align with the journal's focus and scope, comply with the Author Guidelines, and meet the requirements of publication ethics. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts are original, have not been previously published, and are not under consideration for publication by another journal.

To support the double-blind review process, the main manuscript file submitted to reviewers must not contain author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or other information that could reveal the authors' identities. Authorship information must be provided through the submission metadata or a separate file, in accordance with the journal's instructions.

Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript is initially assessed by an editor to determine its suitability for the journal's focus and scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines, completeness of the manuscript, and preliminary scholarly and methodological merit. The editor also conducts an originality and similarity screening in accordance with the journal's policies.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet basic requirements, or present substantial problems may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external review. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to the peer review stage.

Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter. The editor selects reviewers based on their relevant expertise, academic qualifications, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers must not evaluate manuscripts when relationships or interests could compromise the objectivity of their assessment.

The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Review Process and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers critically and objectively evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

Originality and scholarly contribution to mathematics education.
Relevance to the focus and scope of EQUALS.
Clarity of the objectives, research questions, or main arguments.
Appropriateness of the theoretical framework, research methods, study design, and analytical techniques.
Adequacy of the evidence, data, analysis, and interpretation supporting the results and conclusions.
Relevance and currency of the references.
Clarity of presentation, organization, and scholarly writing.
Compliance with academic integrity and publication ethics.

Reviewers provide comments, recommendations for improvement, and an evaluation to the editor. Reviewers provide scholarly advice, while the editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision.

Editorial Decisions

Based on the review reports and editorial considerations, the editor may make one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections before it can be considered for publication.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revision and may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, relevance, or publication standards.

The editor's decision is based on the review reports, manuscript quality, compliance with journal policies, and other relevant scholarly considerations. Reviewer recommendations are important considerations but do not automatically determine the final decision.

Manuscript Revision

When revision is required, authors must revise their manuscripts in response to the reviewers' and editor's comments within the deadline specified in the editorial decision letter. Authors must provide a structured response to the reviewers' comments, explain the changes made, and provide scholarly justification when a recommendation has not been followed.

Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the editor or returned to reviewers for further evaluation, depending on the nature and extent of the required revisions. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

Final Decision and Publication

After the review and revision process has been completed, the editor makes the final decision based on manuscript quality, the authors' responses, the results of further review where applicable, and compliance with EQUALS publication standards. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, formatting, final checks, and publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the required standards may be rejected.

Confidentiality and Review Ethics

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, use, or exploit unpublished information for personal or third-party benefit. Reviewers must provide objective, professional, and evidence-based assessments and avoid personal or irrelevant comments.

Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest to the editor and decline review assignments when they cannot provide an independent assessment. Editors are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the review process and ensuring that editorial decisions are made fairly, transparently, and in accordance with EQUALS publication policies.