Forum Paedagogik

All manuscripts submitted to Forum Paedagogik, a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by the Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training, Universitas Islam Negeri Syekh Ali Hasan Ahmad Addary Padangsidimpuan, Indonesia, undergo an initial editorial screening and a rigorous peer-review process to ensure their academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, and contribution to educational sciences.

Forum Paedagogik applies a Double-Blind Peer-Review Process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Each manuscript that successfully passes the initial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

The journal is committed to ensuring that all editorial decisions are made fairly, objectively, transparently, and independently, based on scholarly merit and recognized publication ethics principles.

The review process consists of five main stages:

Initial Screening → Peer Review → First Decision → Revision Stage → Final Decision

1. Initial Screening

All newly submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board to determine their suitability for publication in Forum Paedagogik.

The initial screening includes an assessment of the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, particularly educational sciences, educational management, Islamic education, educational psychology, educational evaluation, instructional media, learning strategies, and educational guidance and counseling.

The editorial team also examines compliance with the journal's author guidelines, manuscript template, formatting requirements, reference standards, academic writing conventions, and publication ethics policies.

All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and textual similarity using Turnitin. The journal applies a maximum similarity index of 20%, subject to editorial evaluation of the nature and context of the detected similarities. A similarity score within the permitted threshold does not automatically guarantee that a manuscript is free from plagiarism.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, contain significant plagiarism, or demonstrate serious academic integrity concerns may be rejected during the initial screening stage without proceeding to external peer review.

2. Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to an Editor or Section Editor responsible for coordinating and supervising the peer-review process.

The assigned Editor or Section Editor selects and invites at least two independent reviewers who possess relevant academic qualifications, research experience, and expertise in the manuscript's subject area.

All manuscripts are evaluated using a double-blind peer-review system to maintain impartiality and minimize potential bias.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following academic criteria:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

• Originality, novelty, and contribution to scientific knowledge.

• Clarity of research objectives and theoretical framework.

• Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology.

• Validity and reliability of research findings.

• Quality of data analysis, interpretation, and discussion.

• Relevance and currency of scholarly references.

• Coherence of conclusions and implications.

• Compliance with research ethics and publication standards.

The Editor or Section Editor is responsible for coordinating the review process, communicating with reviewers and authors, assessing reviewers' recommendations, and providing editorial recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers must maintain manuscript confidentiality, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations within the specified review period.

3. First Decision

After receiving at least two independent reviewer reports, the assigned Editor or Section Editor evaluates the recommendations and prepares an editorial assessment.

If the reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the Editor or Section Editor may invite an additional reviewer to ensure a fair and comprehensive evaluation.

Based on the reviewers' reports and editorial assessment, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

1. Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic quality, methodological, ethical, or publication standards.

2. Accepted without Revision: The manuscript meets the required publication standards without substantial modifications.

3. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited improvements in presentation, clarification, references, or other specific aspects.

4. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements in methodology, theoretical framework, analysis, interpretation, or academic argumentation.

5. Resubmission for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revision and an additional peer-review evaluation before a final decision can be made.

The final authority to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' recommendations, editorial assessment, and consultation with the Editorial Team when necessary.

4. Revision Stage

Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the corresponding author along with the reviewers' comments and editorial recommendations.

Authors must revise their manuscripts carefully and systematically in accordance with the feedback provided by reviewers and editors.

The revised submission should include the updated manuscript and, where requested, a response document explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Authors are expected to complete revisions within the deadline specified by the editorial team. If additional time is required, authors should communicate with the assigned editor before the deadline.

The assigned Editor or Section Editor evaluates the revised manuscript to determine whether the requested improvements have been adequately implemented.

If the revisions are insufficient, the manuscript may be returned to the author for further improvement or submitted for an additional round of peer review.

Failure to address substantial reviewer comments, comply with ethical requirements, or submit revisions within the agreed timeframe may result in rejection or administrative closure of the submission following appropriate editorial consideration.

5. Final Decision

The final editorial decision is made after the manuscript has completed the required peer-review and revision stages.

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the revised manuscript, reviewers' recommendations, and the assigned editor's assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets the publication standards of Forum Paedagogik.

At this stage, the manuscript may be:

• Accepted for Publication: The manuscript has fulfilled the journal's academic, methodological, editorial, and ethical requirements.

• Returned for Additional Revision: Further improvements are required before a final acceptance decision can be issued.

• Rejected: The manuscript fails to meet the required publication standards despite the review and revision process.

Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, final author verification, and publication scheduling in accordance with the journal's editorial workflow.

Acceptance for publication is based solely on the manuscript's academic merit, originality, methodological quality, scholarly contribution, and compliance with publication ethics.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for editorial decisions and ensures that the peer-review process is implemented consistently and professionally.

6. Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

Forum Paedagogik maintains the confidentiality of all manuscripts submitted for publication.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing manuscript contents or using unpublished research findings for personal or professional advantage without appropriate authorization.

All individuals involved in the editorial process must disclose potential conflicts of interest and withdraw from handling manuscripts when such conflicts could compromise their independence or objectivity.

Editorial decisions shall not be influenced by authors' institutional affiliations, academic positions, personal relationships, financial considerations, or other non-academic factors.

Forum Paedagogik is committed to maintaining a fair, professional, independent, and ethically responsible peer-review system in accordance with internationally recognized scholarly publishing standards.

Editorial Office

Forum Paedagogik

Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training

Universitas Islam Negeri Syekh Ali Hasan Ahmad Addary Padangsidimpuan, Indonesia

Website: https://jurnal.uinsyahada.ac.id/index.php/JP

Email: paedagogikftikiain@gmail.com

P-ISSN: 2086-1915 | E-ISSN: 2721-8414