Publication Ethics

Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

The ethics statement of the Educative: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan is based on the Code of Conduct guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at

Educative: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.

Steps in the publishing process:

1 – Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts along with a separate title page as shown in author guidelines.

2 – Pre-review: The submissions are reviewed by the editorial board to understand whether they are (i) prepared according to the author guidelines, (ii) compatible with the Educative’s scope, (iii) qualified enough for potential publishing decision.

3 – With editor:The submissions meeting the criteria defined in Step 2 are forwarded to one of the editorial board members. The editor reviews the manuscript for ethical concerns, possible research and publication misconducts, reduntant publication and plagiarism. The editor ensures that the submission is reviewed by at least one scholars who are field experts and have studied on the subject of the submission.

4 – In review: The editor assigns at least two suitably qualified reviewers for external review of the manuscript. The editor may assign another reviewer for statistical review where appropriate. The reviewers review the manuscript to ensure the rigorous standards of the scientific process and ask for revisions where needed. The reviewers may also comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions and originality of submissions, and to alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.

5 – After review: After the reviewers have completed their reports on the manuscript, the editor sends them to the authors in their entirety. The editor decides to revise, reject or accept the manuscript based on reviewers’ comments.

6 – Revision: If the editor decides on minor/major revision based on reviewers’ comments, the authors need to revise their manuscript accordingly. The authors need to submit their revised version of the manuscript, and files including explanations for the reviewers, which are prepared for each reviewer separately.

7 – Decision: The editor checks the revised version of the manuscript whether the authors have completed the necessary revisions, then sends it along with the explanation files to reviewers to learn if they have any concerns about the revised manuscript. The editor decides to reject or accept the manuscript by considering the reviewers’ second reports. The editor may also ask the authors to revise the manuscript again.