PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Indonesian Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning (IJITL) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the IJITL for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility of the papers. The peer review in IJITL is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the IJITL for publication is subject to peer review. proceeds in 9 steps with the description as follows.

1. Submission of Paper:
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). But in order to facilitate authors, the Indonesian Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning (IJITL) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the IJITL for publication is subject to peer review. temporarily also accepts paper submissions by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment:
The submitted paper is first assessed by the IJITL editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable for the Journal focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper that passes this step will be checked by Turnitin to measure the similarity index which leads to plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief:
The Editor-in-Chief checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

4. Invitation to Reviewers:
The handling editor sends invitations to individuals who he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers (also known as referees) based on expertise, the closeness of research interest, and no conflict of interest consideration. The peer review process at the Indonesian Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning (IJITL) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the IJITL for publication is subject to peer review. involves a community of experts in a narrowly defined field of teaching and learning who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial reviews. The impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review employed in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the author's identity, conversely, the author does not know the reviewer's identity.  The paper is sent to reviewers anonymously.

5. Response to Invitations:
Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer for the suggestion of an alternative reviewer, when he or she declines to review.

6. Review is Conducted:
The reviewers allocate sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate the manuscript, typically reading it multiple times. The first reading helps them form an initial impression. If critical issues are identified at this stage, the reviewer may recommend immediate rejection without further assessment. Otherwise, they proceed with subsequent readings, taking detailed notes to develop a comprehensive, point-by-point review.

Upon completion, reviewers submit their reports to the journal, accompanied by a recommendation: accept, reject, or request for revision (usually categorized as either major or minor revisions).

7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews:
The Editor-in-Chief and the assigned handling editor carefully consider all reviewer feedback before making a final decision. If there is a significant discrepancy between reviewer evaluations, the handling editor may seek an opinion from an additional reviewer to ensure a fair and balanced decision.

Editorial Decision Based on Review Result:
Drawing from the peer reviewers' comments and recommendations, the Editor makes one of the following decisions. The peer review process typically takes between 2 to 10 weeks. The Editor's decision is explained below:

• Accept (Accept Submission): The manuscript is accepted in its current form with no further changes required. The editorial team will notify the author, who must then submit the final version of the manuscript within 1–2 weeks. Failure to submit the final version on time, or failure to notify the editorial board of any delays, may result in the manuscript being withdrawn from publication.
• Accept with Revisions (Revision Required): The manuscript is accepted on the condition that minor or major revisions are completed. The author is required to revise the manuscript accordingly. The revised version will be evaluated by the editor (and, if necessary, sent back to reviewers) to ensure all required changes have been satisfactorily addressed before final acceptance.
• Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial changes and must be resubmitted as a new submission. If resubmitted, it will undergo a full second round of peer review.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal and is rejected outright. Authors will not be given the opportunity to submit a revised version.

8. The Decision is Communicated:
The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.

9. Final Steps:
When a manuscript is accepted,, the paper is sent to copy-editing. Suppose the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision. In that case, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers' comments and instructions.

After revision has been made, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

If the editor agrees with the revised manuscript, it is considered accepted. The accepted papers will be published online and are all freely available as downloadable PDF files.