Peer Review Process
Early Childhood Education Development and Studies (ECEDS) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to all submitted manuscripts. In this process, both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the entire review period. This approach ensures impartial and objective evaluation based solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript.
1. Types of Articles Accepted
ECEDS accepts the following types of manuscripts for peer review:
- Original empirical research articles (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods)

- Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses (following PRISMA 2020 guidelines)

- Case study reports with significant theoretical or practical contributions

- Brief reports of significant preliminary or pilot findings2.

Review Stages and Timeline
Stage Description Duration

Stage	Description	Duration
Administrative screening	Editor checks completeness of submission files, scope fit, plagiarism screening (Turnitin), and formatting compliance	1–2 weeks
Reviewer assignment	Editor in Chief assigns at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise	1 week
Peer review	Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit their recommendations	4–6 weeks
Editorial decision	Editor in Chief makes a decision based on reviewer recommendations	1 week
Revision (if required)	Authors revise and resubmit with a point-by-point response to reviewer comments	2–4 weeks
Final decision and proofreading	Final acceptance, language editing, and layout	1–2 weeks
Online publication	Article published with active DOI	1 week

3. Criteria for Reviewer Selection
ECEDS assigns reviewers based on the following criteria:
- Expertise in the topic area of the submitted manuscript

- Active researcher with a relevant publication record (preferably indexed in SINTA, Scopus, or WoS)

- No conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions

- Registered ORCID ID

- Availability to complete the review within the designated timeframe

Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers. In cases of disagreement between reviewers, the Editor in Chief may seek a third reviewer's opinion.

4. Editorial Decisions
Based on reviewer recommendations, the Editor in Chief will make one of the following decisions:
Accepted — the manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted or with minor typographical corrections only

Minor Revision — the manuscript requires minor revisions that do not require re-review; authors must respond within 2 weeks

Major Revision — the manuscript requires substantial revisions and will be re-reviewed; authors must respond within 4 weeks

Rejected — the manuscript does not meet the journal's standards and will not be reconsidered; a rejection does not preclude resubmission of a substantially revised manuscript as a new submission

All decisions are communicated to the corresponding author via the OJS submission system.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects:
- Relevance and originality of the research topic

- Scientific rigor of the methodology (alignment with COREQ, STROBE, or PRISMA as applicable)

- Accuracy, clarity, and completeness of data presentation

- Soundness of the discussion and conclusionsAdequacy and currency of references

- Quality and clarity of writing

Reviewers are requested to provide constructive, specific, and actionable comments that help authors improve their manuscripts, regardless of the final recommendation.

6. Author Responsibilities During Review
Authors are expected to:
- Respond to reviewer and editorial comments promptly within the timeframe stated in the decision letter

- Submit a detailed point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment, indicating the page and paragraph number of each change made

- Submit a revised manuscript with all changes highlighted or tracked

- Notify the editorial office immediately if they wish to withdraw their manuscript during the review process

Manuscripts not resubmitted within the stated deadline without prior notification will be considered withdrawn.

7. Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content of manuscripts under review for any purpose other than providing their review. Editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than those directly involved in the review process.
ECEDS peer review process is conducted in accordance with COPE guidelines on peer review (cope.org) Last updated: 2025.

Proses Peer Review
Early Childhood Education Development and Studies (ECEDS) menerapkan proses double-blind peer review yang ketat untuk semua naskah yang dikirimkan. Dalam proses ini, identitas penulis dan reviewer tidak saling diketahui sepanjang periode review. Pendekatan ini memastikan penilaian yang tidak memihak dan objektif berdasarkan semata-mata pada kualitas ilmiah naskah.
1. Jenis Artikel yang Diterima
ECEDS menerima jenis naskah berikut untuk melalui proses peer review:

Tahap	Deskripsi	Estimasi Waktu
Seleksi administratif	Editor memeriksa kelengkapan file submission, kesesuaian ruang lingkup, skrining plagiarisme (Turnitin), dan kepatuhan format	1–2 minggu
Penugasan reviewer	Editor in Chief menugaskan minimal dua reviewer independen dengan keahlian relevan	1 minggu
Peer review	Reviewer mengevaluasi naskah dan menyampaikan rekomendasi mereka	4–6 minggu
Keputusan editorial	Editor in Chief membuat keputusan berdasarkan rekomendasi reviewer	1 minggu
Revisi (jika diminta)	Penulis merevisi dan mengirim ulang naskah dengan respons poin per poin terhadap komentar reviewer	2–4 minggu
Keputusan final dan proofreading	Penerimaan final, penyuntingan bahasa, dan tata letak	1–2 minggu
Publikasi online	Artikel diterbitkan dengan DOI aktif	1 minggu

3. Kriteria Pemilihan Reviewer
ECEDS menugaskan reviewer berdasarkan kriteria berikut:
- Keahlian dalam topik yang relevan dengan naskah yang diajukan

- Peneliti aktif dengan rekam jejak publikasi yang relevan (diutamakan terindeks SINTA, Scopus, atau WoS)

- Tidak memiliki konflik kepentingan dengan penulis atau institusi mereka

- Memiliki ORCID iD terdaftarBersedia menyelesaikan review dalam batas waktu yang ditentukan

Setiap naskah ditinjau oleh minimal dua reviewer independen. Dalam hal terdapat ketidaksesuaian antara reviewer, Editor in Chief dapat meminta pendapat reviewer ketiga.

4. Keputusan Editorial
Berdasarkan rekomendasi reviewer, Editor in Chief akan membuat salah satu dari keputusan berikut:
Diterima (Accepted) — naskah diterima untuk diterbitkan sebagaimana dikirimkan atau hanya dengan koreksi tipografi minor

Revisi Minor (Minor Revision) — naskah memerlukan revisi kecil yang tidak memerlukan review ulang; penulis harus merespons dalam 2 minggu

Revisi Mayor (Major Revision) — naskah memerlukan revisi substansial dan akan ditinjau ulang; penulis harus merespons dalam 4 minggu

Ditolak (Rejected) — naskah tidak memenuhi standar jurnal dan tidak akan dipertimbangkan kembali;

penolakan tidak menutup kemungkinan pengiriman ulang naskah yang telah direvisi secara substansial sebagai submission baruSemua keputusan dikomunikasikan kepada penulis korespondensi melalui sistem submission OJS.

5. Tanggung Jawab Reviewer
Reviewer diharapkan mengevaluasi naskah berdasarkan aspek-aspek berikut:
- Relevansi dan orisinalitas topik penelitian

- Keketatan ilmiah metodologi (kesesuaian dengan COREQ, STROBE, atau PRISMA sesuai desain)

- Keakuratan, kejelasan, dan kelengkapan penyajian dataKekokohan diskusi dan kesimpulan

- Kecukupan dan kemutakhiran referensi

- Kualitas dan kejelasan penulisan

Reviewer diminta memberikan komentar yang konstruktif, spesifik, dan dapat ditindaklanjuti untuk membantu penulis meningkatkan naskahnya, terlepas dari rekomendasi akhir yang diberikan.

6. Tanggung Jawab Penulis Selama Review
Penulis diharapkan untuk:
- Merespons komentar reviewer dan editor tepat waktu sesuai batas waktu yang dinyatakan dalam surat keputusan

- Menyertakan surat respons poin per poin yang menjawab setiap komentar reviewer, dengan mencantumkan nomor halaman dan paragraf dari setiap perubahan yang dilakukan

- Menyerahkan naskah revisi dengan semua perubahan ditandai atau menggunakan Track Changes

- Segera memberitahu kantor editorial jika ingin menarik naskah selama proses review

Naskah yang tidak dikembalikan dalam batas waktu yang ditetapkan tanpa pemberitahuan sebelumnya akan dianggap ditarik oleh penulis.

7. Kerahasiaan
Semua naskah yang sedang dalam proses review diperlakukan sebagai dokumen rahasia. Reviewer tidak boleh berbagi, mendiskusikan, atau menggunakan isi naskah yang sedang ditinjau untuk tujuan apa pun selain memberikan review mereka. Editor tidak boleh mengungkapkan informasi apa pun tentang naskah yang dikirimkan kepada siapa pun selain mereka yang terlibat langsung dalam proses review.
Proses peer review ECEDS dilaksanakan sesuai panduan COPE mengenai peer review (cope.org). Terakhir diperbarui: 2025.