Neo Civic Education: Media Kajian Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan uses double-anonymous peer review: the authors do not know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers do not know who the authors are. The process follows the COPE Core Practice on peer review processes and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

—  Scope: the manuscript fits the Focus and Scope and is one of the accepted types of manuscript.

—  Template and language: the article template is used, the manuscript is in English, and the references follow APA 7th.

—  Anonymisation: names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and identifying self-citations are removed, including from file properties.

—  Similarity: checked with similarity-detection software.

—  Reporting: systematic reviews must follow PRISMA 2020, with the flow diagram and checklist; a review without it is returned to the authors. For other designs, the reporting guideline is named in the Methods. See Reporting Guidelines.

—  Ethics: approval and consent for research with people, and declarations of funding, conflicts of interest, data availability, and AI use. See the Ethical Clearance Statement and Generative AI Policy.

—  At least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject, chosen by the handling editor, never by the authors.

—  Identities checked through institutional email and ORCID iD. Reviewers suggested by authors are checked independently and never make up the whole panel.

—  Reviewers declare conflicts of interest and decline where needed. See Reviewer Competing Interests.

—  Reviewers keep manuscripts confidential and do not upload them to AI tools. See Peer Review Confidentiality and AI in Peer Review.

—  Reviewers are thanked by issue on the reviewer list, never by manuscript.

—  Editors monitor review quality. Reviews that are superficial, biased, discourteous, or apparently AI-generated are not used, and the reviewer may be replaced.

Decisions rest on the evidence in the manuscript and on the reviews, not on the identity, nationality, or standing of the authors, and not on fees. Inappropriate reviewer comments are removed before reviews are sent. See Editorial Decisions and Editing Peer Reviews.

1.  Revise using the same template, and keep the file anonymous.

2.  Show changes with tracked changes or highlighting.

3.  Write a response letter that answers every comment, point by point: what you changed and where, or why you did not.

4.  Upload the revision and the letter through the journal system before the deadline. Ask the editor before the deadline if you need an extension.

—  All communication goes through the journal system or neociviceducation@unima.ac.id. Authors can follow the status of their submission in OJS.

—  Reviewers receive automatic reminders before and after the 21-day deadline. Late reviewers may be replaced to keep the process on time.

—  If a stage takes longer than the published limit, the editor tells the authors and gives a new expected date.

—  Authors who receive no update within the published time limits may write to the editor.

—  Manuscripts by editors or board members are handled by another editor, and the editor-author has no access to the process.

—  Suspected misconduct during review pauses the process. See Research Misconduct and Peer Review Manipulation.

—  Withdrawal by authors during review is possible by writing to the editor. See Correction, Retraction and Withdrawal.

Authors may appeal against a decision within 30 days. Disagreement alone is not a ground for appeal. See Editorial Appeals. Complaints about the process are handled under the Complaints Policy.

Publication Ethics  ·  Author Guidelines  ·  Conflict of Interest  ·  Reviewers  ·  neociviceducation@unima.ac.id