O’dora Journal of Educational Studies (OJES) is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of every published article. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo editorial screening and peer review before being accepted for publication.

The journal applies a double-blind peer-review process. This means that the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process. The review process is designed to ensure fairness, objectivity, confidentiality, transparency, and academic independence.

After submission through the online system, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further review. Manuscripts may be returned to the authors or desk-rejected if they do not meet the basic requirements.

1. 1 Manuscript Submission

   Authors submit manuscripts through the OJES online submission system. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all required files, metadata, declarations, and author information are complete and accurate.

2. 2 Administrative and Technical Screening

   The editorial office checks the manuscript for completeness, formatting, template compliance, reference style, author information, and required publication statements.

3. 3 Editorial Screening

   The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates whether the manuscript fits the journal’s aims and scope, has sufficient scholarly merit, and is appropriate for peer review.

4. 4 Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

   The manuscript is checked for similarity, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate submission, and possible redundant publication. Manuscripts with serious similarity or ethical concerns may be rejected.

5. 5 Reviewer Assignment

   Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on academic competence, publication record, subject relevance, and absence of conflicts of interest.

6. 6 Double-Blind Peer Review

   Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and confidentially. They assess originality, theoretical foundation, methodological rigor, data analysis, clarity of presentation, ethical compliance, relevance, and contribution to educational studies.

7. 7 Editorial Decision

   Based on reviewer reports and editorial evaluation, the editor makes one of the following decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for review, or reject.

8. 8 Revision by Authors

   Authors must revise the manuscript according to reviewer and editor comments. A response-to-reviewers document must be submitted, explaining how each comment has been addressed.

9. 9 Final Evaluation

   The editor evaluates the revised manuscript. Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. The editor may request additional revisions before making a final decision.

10. 10 Acceptance, Copyediting, and Publication

    Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, author proofreading, metadata checking, DOI assignment when applicable, and online publication.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts carefully and respond to all comments from reviewers and editors. Revised manuscripts must be accompanied by a response letter that explains point-by-point how the authors addressed each comment.

• Minor revisions should normally be returned within 7–14 days.
• Major revisions should normally be returned within 14–30 days.
• Authors who need additional time should contact the editorial office before the revision deadline.
• Failure to submit a revision within the required time may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from the editorial process.

The peer-review timeline may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision complexity, and editorial workload. The estimated review timeline is as follows:

1. 1 Objectivity

   Reviewers must provide fair, objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.

2. 2 Confidentiality

   Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, cite, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal advantage.

3. 3 Conflict of Interest

   Reviewers must decline a review invitation if they have conflicts of interest, including personal, professional, institutional, financial, competitive, or collaborative relationships with the authors or their institutions.

4. 4 Ethical Alert

   Reviewers should notify the editor if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, unethical research, citation manipulation, or other publication misconduct.

5. 5 Use of Artificial Intelligence

   Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or review materials to public artificial intelligence tools or third-party platforms without permission from the editor. Any AI-assisted review support must not compromise confidentiality, originality, or reviewer responsibility.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that may affect impartiality in handling or reviewing a manuscript. When a conflict of interest exists, the editor or reviewer must be replaced by another qualified person.

Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to, recent collaboration with the authors, institutional relationship, financial interest, personal relationship, academic competition, supervisory relationship, or any condition that may influence objective judgment.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that a decision was made based on a misunderstanding, procedural error, or incomplete evaluation. Appeals must be submitted in writing with clear justification and supporting evidence.

The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may consult another editor, editorial board member, or independent reviewer. The appeal decision is final. Complaints regarding the peer-review process, editorial handling, reviewer conduct, or ethical issues may be submitted to the editorial office.

Authors who wish to withdraw a manuscript must submit a formal withdrawal request to the editorial office. The request must include the manuscript title, manuscript ID, corresponding author name, and reason for withdrawal.

Withdrawal after the manuscript has entered the review, editing, or publication stage should be avoided unless there is a valid academic or ethical reason. The editorial team will evaluate each withdrawal request before confirming the withdrawal status.

Editorial Office
O’dora Journal of Educational Studies
PT. Gammabeta Edu and Tech in cooperation with FKIP Universitas Halmahera
Indonesia

Email: admin@gammabeta.id
Website: https://gammabeta.id/ojs/index.php/ojes