Peer Review Process

Some policies in the review of Manthano Journal:

All manuscripts submitted to this journal (Manthano: Jurnal Pendidikan Kristen) must follow this journal’s focus, scope, and author guidelines. The submitted manuscripts must fulfill criteria of scientific merit, novelty, or new contribution to knowledge appropriate to the focus and scope of this journal.

All submitted manuscripts must be free from plagiarism. All authors are advised to use plagiarism detection software to check similarity (please use Turnitin). Editors will also check the similarity of manuscripts in this journal using Turnitin software.

  1. The Editors will review the submitted article that follows the guidelines, focus scope, and template of the journal provided
  2. This journal’s review process employs double-masked peer review, meaning the reviewers' and authors' identities are concealed.
  3. To ensure the quality of the article, it will be reviewed by at least two reviewers in the review process.
  4. In the review process, the reviewers ensure the quality of the articles’ titles, abstracts, discussions, and conclusions. They also address the novelty and contribution to the scientific debate and verify the plagiarism and ethics of publication.
  5. The reviewer also provides feedback on whether the article is accepted, rejected, or needs minor or major revision.

Reviewers must recommend a particular course of action. Still, they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a specific manuscript may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to decide based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information upon which a decision should be based, setting out the arguments for and against publication.

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and author and may also consider other information unavailable to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each manuscript against the many others also under consideration.

We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. So, we ask that reviewers be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum as we judge it necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.