Peer Review Process

When a manuscript is submitted, the editor evaluates it to see whether the manuscript aligns with the focus and scope of the journal. Next, Turnitin is used to check for similarity in the manuscript. Only manuscripts with less than 15% similarity will be processed directly. If the manuscript similarity is in the 15%-30% range, the manuscript will be returned to the author. And if it is more than 30%, the manuscript will be directly rejected (see the plagiarism policy). Additionally, the components that make up the article are also strictly checked. At this point, manuscripts that are outside the scope of the journal, involve plagiarism, or are incomplete in presenting the article's components—including self-plagiarism—will be rejected.

JKI-SD implements a double-blind review process, ensuring anonymity for both reviewers and authors throughout the review. Authors are mandated to anonymize their manuscripts prior to submission to preserve confidentiality. The peer review process aims to fulfill two key objectives: firstly, to deliver constructive feedback that enables authors to enhance their work to meet high academic standards, and secondly, to aid editors in assessing the manuscript's appropriateness for publication. The journal expressly rejects peer reviews that include harsh, discriminatory, or excessively negative remarks, as well as those displaying bias towards particular ideologies or disciplines. JKI-SD is dedicated to supporting scholars, especially early-career researchers and those without elite academic training, by requiring reviewers to provide constructive and supportive criticism to help authors improve their submissions.

If the submitted manuscript is suitable to be sent to a peer review, the manuscript is reviewed by two members of the Reviewer Board of the journal who don’t have potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers must evaluate the article based on the following criteria:

  • CONTENT (e.g.: Clarity of objective; theoretical framework; conclusions drawn; understanding of the subject; contribution to technology and science education.) [0-2 Points]

  • DEGREE OF NOVELTY OR ORIGINALITY (e.g.: presence of new ideas; uniqueness compared to existing literature.) [0-1 Point]

  • STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER (e.g.: general layout; use and number of figures/diagrams, etc.) [0-1 Point]

  • REVIEWER’S GENERAL OPINION AND COMMENTS (e.g.: correctness of the text; applicability of the included items; quality of the manuscript; scope covered.) [0-5 Points]

  • QUALITY OF THE TEXT (e.g.: Clarity of expression; consistency; readability; number of citations; quality and quantity of references.) [0-1 Point]

Taking into account the results of the peer-reviewing process, the decision as to the acceptability of each manuscript for publication will be notified to the author(s) through the website system in the following alternative conclusions:

  • Accept: Manuscript can be published in its current form
  • Accept after minor changes: Light revisions required before publication
  • Reject and resubmit after major changes: Significant revisions needed; new review round required
  • Reject: Paper not suitable for publication in JKI-SD or fundamental issues cannot be resolved

The reviewers will return their recommendations and reports to the editor, providing general comments to the editor and both general and specific comments to the author(s). Constructive comments that might help the authors improve their work are passed on anonymously (even if editor do not accept the submitted manuscript). After that, editor assesses them collectively, and then makes a decision, either on his or her own or in consultation with other editors on whether to reject the manuscript.

If the article receives comments from the reviewer and requires revisions, the author must submit a REBUTTAL LETTER to document the revision trail. The final decision on acceptability for publication lies with the Editors-in-Chief.

The editor will communicate the overall result of the evaluation (rejected, accepted or accepted with modifications), including the reviewer's comments. Revised manuscripts may be subject to further peer review if appropriate.