Editorial Decisions

NEO CIVIC EDUCATION: MEDIA KAJIAN PANCASILA DAN KEWARGANEGARAAN

Editorial Decisions & Revision

How decisions are made and how revisions are handled, following COPE. Click a section to open it.

01Principles▾
Editorial decisions in Neo Civic Education: Media Kajian Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan rest on the evidence in the manuscript and on the reviews, not on the identity, nationality, institution, or standing of the authors, and not on fees or funding. The process follows the COPE Core Practices on peer review processes and journal management, and COPE’s guidance for editors.
Who decides The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, on the recommendation of the handling editor.
Basis Originality, scholarly rigour, contribution to citizenship studies and civic education, fit with the Focus and Scope, ethics, and the reviews.
Independence Decisions are independent of the publisher, AP3KnI, and any fees. See Ownership and Management.
Conflicts An editor with a conflict of interest does not handle or decide on the manuscript.
02Decision at initial screening▾
Within up to 7 days of submission, the editors check scope, template, anonymisation, similarity, and ethics statements. The possible outcomes are:
Sent to review The manuscript meets the basic requirements.
Returned for technical fixes For example, the template, anonymisation, or missing declarations. The author resubmits.
Declined without review Outside the scope, below the basic standard, over the similarity limits, or with ethical problems.
03Decisions after peer review▾
Accept The manuscript can be published as it is, apart from copyediting.
Minor revisions Small changes are needed. Revise within 1 week. The editor checks the revision.
Major revisions Substantial changes are needed. Revise within 3 weeks. The revision is usually sent back to the reviewers.
Decline The manuscript is not suitable for the journal, with the reasons given.
One extension of up to 1 week may be requested for a revision. A revision that arrives late without an agreed extension may be treated as a new submission.
04How decisions are made▾
—  At least two independent reviewers assess each research article and systematic review.
—  The handling editor weighs the reviews, does not simply count votes, and may invite an additional reviewer if the reviews disagree sharply.
—  Inappropriate or personal comments are removed or edited before reviews are sent to authors.
—  Every decision letter gives the reasons and includes the reviewers’ comments.
—  Manuscripts by editors or board members are decided by another editor, and the editor-author has no access to the process.
05Revisions and the final decision▾
—  Authors revise the manuscript and explain each change, or why a suggestion was not followed, in a response letter.
—  Acceptance is final only after all requested changes have been made and the ethics and declaration requirements are met.
—  The first decision is usually made within about 6 weeks, and the final decision by week 14, or at the latest 4 months after submission.
—  After acceptance, the article is copyedited, laid out, and published online (with a DOI once the journal registers DOIs). The journal charges no fees. See Author Fees.
06Changing a decision▾
—  Authors who believe a decision is wrong may appeal within 30 days. See Editorial Appeals.
—  An acceptance may be withdrawn before publication if serious problems are found, such as plagiarism, fabricated data, or undisclosed duplicate publication. See Research Misconduct.
—  Decisions are never changed in return for payment or pressure.
07Related policies▾