Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process
Overview
The International Journal of Didactic Mathematics in Distance Education (IJDMDE) is a fully open-access, peer-reviewed international academic journal published by Universitas Terbuka (Open University), Indonesia, in collaboration with the Indonesia Mathematics Educator Society (I-MES). IJDMDE is committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly peer review, in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) criteria.

Review Model
IJDMDE employs a double-blind peer review model for all submitted manuscripts. Under this model:

  • The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers throughout the entire review process.

  • The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout the entire review process.

  • Neither authors nor reviewers are informed of each other's identity at any stage, including after the final decision.

This model is adopted to eliminate bias arising from the author's institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, academic seniority, or prior relationship with reviewers, and to ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of their academic merit.

Peer Review Procedure
Manuscripts that pass initial desk screening are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to a minimum of three (3) independent expert reviewers. The complete procedure is as follows:
Step 1 — Reviewer Invitation The Editor-in-Chief identifies and invites qualified reviewers from IJDMDE's reviewer panel and external expert pool, taking into account subject expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, and geographical diversity.
Step 2 — Manuscript Evaluation Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript and provides a structured written assessment covering:

  • Relevance and alignment with the journal's focus and scope
  • Originality and novelty of the research contribution
  • Soundness of the theoretical framework and conceptual grounding
  • Appropriateness and rigour of the research methodology
  • Accuracy, clarity, and depth of the results and discussion
  • Quality and completeness of the literature review and referencing
  • Clarity, coherence, and academic quality of the writing
  • Compliance with ethical research standards

Step 3 — Reviewer Recommendation Each reviewer submits one of the following recommendations:

Recommendation Author Response Required
Accept as submitted No revision needed
Minor revision Resubmit within 2 weeks
Major revision Resubmit within 4 weeks
Reject and resubmit Full restructuring required; treated as new submission
Reject Manuscript does not meet publication standards

Step 4 — Editorial Decision The Editor-in-Chief reviews all reviewer reports and makes the final editorial decision based on the weight and consensus of reviewer recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final and binding.
Step 5 — Author Notification The corresponding author is notified of the editorial decision via the OJS system, together with consolidated reviewer comments, typically within 30 to 60 days of submission.
Step 6 — Revision and Resubmission If revision is required, the corresponding author must resubmit via the OJS system accompanied by a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment. The revised manuscript will be returned to the original reviewers for verification where appropriate.
Step 7 — Final Decision Upon acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to language editing, layout, and production. The author will be asked to approve the final proof before publication.

Reviewer Responsibilities
Conflict of Interest Reviewers who identify any conflict of interest — prior collaboration, institutional affiliation, personal relationship, or competitive interest with any author — must promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and recuse themselves. A replacement reviewer will be assigned.
Confidentiality All manuscripts are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, cite, or use any content from a manuscript under review for personal or professional advantage at any stage.
Timeliness Reviewers who cannot complete a review within the agreed timeframe must notify the Editor-in-Chief promptly so that a replacement can be assigned without undue delay to the authors.

Appeals
Authors who believe an editorial decision is factually incorrect or procedurally flawed may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, stating specific grounds and providing supporting evidence. Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewers' academic judgement will not be entertained. All appeals are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines and will be acknowledged within 5 business days and resolved within 30 working days.

For questions regarding the peer review process, please contact the Editorial Office at ijdmdl@ecampus.ut.ac.id.