Peer Review Process

Sangeang Journal applies a rigorous and transparent peer review process to maintain the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of every manuscript considered for publication.

Sangeang Journal uses a double-blind peer review system. Manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editorial team and, when considered suitable for further consideration, are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

Principles of Peer Review

Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose manuscript content or review information to unauthorized parties.

Objectivity
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments that assist authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts.

Expertise and Relevance
Manuscripts are assigned to reviewers whose academic expertise and research interests are relevant to the subject and methodology of the submitted work.

Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scientific quality, relevance to the journal's scope, reviewer recommendations, and publication ethics, without discrimination or inappropriate influence.

Peer Review Workflow

Step 1 — Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. The manuscript should comply with the journal's Author Guidelines and applicable publication requirements.

Step 2 — Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team checks the manuscript for basic suitability, alignment with the journal's scope, originality, completeness, formatting, and compliance with publication policies. Manuscripts that do not meet essential requirements may be returned to the authors or declined before external review.

Step 3 — Reviewer Assignment

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate academic or professional expertise. Reviewer selection takes into consideration subject relevance, methodological expertise, and potential conflicts of interest.

Step 4 — Double-Blind Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently without access to the identity of the authors. Authors likewise do not receive the identities of the reviewers. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on its originality, relevance, methodological rigor, clarity, academic contribution, discussion, conclusions, and references.

Step 5 — Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the editor makes the editorial decision. Reviewer recommendations are important components of the process, but the final decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

Possible Editorial Decisions

The manuscript is accepted for publication with no substantive revision required.

Revision Required

The manuscript requires revisions before a final publication decision can be made.

Resubmit for Review

Substantial revisions are required and the revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication based on the editorial and peer review assessment.

Manuscript Revision

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond carefully to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response to the comments.

Revised manuscripts should normally be submitted within 10 days of the revision request. If the revised manuscript is not submitted within the specified period, the editorial team may consider the submission as a new submission.

Review Criteria

Originality
Novelty and originality of the manuscript.

Relevance
Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

Methodological Quality
Appropriateness and clarity of the research methods.

Results and Discussion
Clarity, consistency, and interpretation of findings.

Academic Contribution
Contribution to knowledge, theory, practice, or society.

Clarity and Organization
Structure, language, coherence, and academic presentation.

References
Adequacy, relevance, and consistency of cited sources.

Publication Ethics
Compliance with applicable research and publication ethics.

Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts and review materials. They should not use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers should also disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their assessment. The editor may assign another reviewer when a significant conflict is identified.

Editorial Responsibility

Sangeang Journal is committed to conducting peer review fairly, confidentially, and professionally. The final publication decision is made by the editor after considering the manuscript's suitability, scientific quality, ethical compliance, and the reviewers' assessments.

Sangeang Journal
Journal of Education and Learning Strategies