PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer Review Process
Jurnal Buana Teknologi Pendidikan applies a structured editorial screening and double-anonymous peer-review process to support the quality, relevance, originality, and scholarly integrity of published manuscripts.
Review Model

Manuscripts that pass the journal's initial editorial screening proceed to double-anonymous peer review, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

Reviewer Governance
Reviewers are selected based on their scholarly expertise, methodological competence, and relevance to the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers are not required to be members of the journal's editorial board and may be drawn from appropriate academic and professional communities.
Reviewers are expected to provide an independent, objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessment. They must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and should decline an assignment when their impartiality, independence, expertise, or ability to complete the review within the requested timeframe may be compromised.
All manuscripts, data, unpublished findings, ideas, and other materials received for review must be treated as confidential and must not be shared, disclosed, or used for personal, professional, competitive, or research advantage. Reviewer recommendations support the editorial evaluation process, while the final publication decision remains the responsibility of the authorized editor.
1
Manuscript Submission
The manuscript is submitted by the author through the journal's online submission system together with the required metadata and supporting information.
2
Initial Editorial Screening
The editor evaluates the manuscript for relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines and manuscript template, completeness of metadata and supporting files, academic quality, manuscript anonymity, and basic ethical requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet fundamental journal requirements may be returned to the author for correction or rejected without external peer review.
3
Originality and Research-Integrity Screening
The manuscript may be screened for plagiarism, inappropriate text overlap, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate citation practices, or other research-integrity concerns using appropriate detection tools and editorial assessment. Similarity scores are treated as indicators and are not interpreted automatically as evidence of plagiarism. Serious concerns may result in rejection, while minor or potentially explainable overlap may be referred to the author for clarification or correction.
4
Reviewer Selection and Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to reviewers whose expertise is appropriate to the manuscript topic and methodology. Reviewer selection also considers independence, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript together with the journal's review form or evaluation criteria.
5
Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript with reference to its relevance to the journal, originality and scholarly contribution, clarity of objectives or research questions, methodological quality, quality of results and analysis, discussion and interpretation, relevance of references, and overall clarity and organization. Reviewers provide constructive comments and a recommendation to the editor.
6
Editorial Evaluation and Decision
The editor considers the reviewers' reports together with the editor's own assessment of the manuscript. The manuscript may receive one of the following decisions: reject, major revision, minor revision, or accept. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the editorial decision.
7
Author Notification
The editorial decision and relevant reviewer and editor comments are communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's editorial system.
8
Revision and Resubmission
When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments. The revised submission may be evaluated by the editor and, where appropriate, may be returned to the original or additional reviewers for further assessment.
Expected Review Timeline
Reviewers are normally requested to respond to a review invitation within approximately one week and to complete the review within approximately two weeks. Actual review times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional review rounds.
Revision Deadline
Unless otherwise agreed with the editorial team, a revised manuscript returned more than three months after the revision request may be treated as a new submission and may require a new editorial assessment.
Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct
Reviewers must treat the manuscript and all associated materials as confidential. Unpublished information, data, interpretations, or ideas obtained through peer review must not be disclosed or used for personal, professional, competitive, or research advantage. Reviewers should immediately inform the editor if they identify a potential conflict of interest, substantial similarity with other work, suspected duplicate publication, research-integrity concerns, or other ethical issues relevant to the manuscript.
Editorial Responsibility: Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial process, but the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection remains the responsibility of the authorized editorial team. Editors may seek additional reviews when reports are incomplete, conflicting, or insufficient to support a well-founded editorial decision.
Peer-Review Commitment: The journal seeks to maintain a fair, confidential, independent, objective, constructive, and academically rigorous peer-review process while protecting reviewer and author confidentiality and preserving the integrity of editorial decision-making.