Peer Review Process

PRIMA: Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Matematika applies a strict peer-review process to ensure the high academic quality and validity of all published manuscripts. Every submitted manuscript undergoes a rigorous evaluation framework conducted by independent experts in the field of mathematics education.

Review Mechanism

The journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review policy. This means that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept completely anonymous throughout the entire review process. Reviewers do not know the origins of the manuscript, and authors do not know who evaluated their work.

Step-by-Step Review Workflow

  1. Initial Screening (Desk Review): Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors evaluate the manuscript for basic compliance with the journal's focus, scope, formatting guidelines, and plagiarism threshold. Manuscripts that do not meet these fundamental criteria will be rejected immediately without external review.
  2. Peer Evaluation: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two (2) independent peer reviewers who are experts in the specific domain of the study. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, methodological rigor, clarity of arguments, and contribution to mathematics education.
  3. Editorial Decision: Based on the recommendations provided by the peer reviewers, the Section Editor makes a preliminary decision, which is then finalized by the Editor-in-Chief.

Possible Outcomes

The final editorial decision will fall into one of the following categories:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further modifications.
  • Revisions Required: The author must address specific issues and modify the manuscript according to the reviewers' feedback before it can be accepted.
  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and must undergo another round of external peer review.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected due to severe methodological flaws, lack of originality, or failure to align with the journal's standards.