1. Policy Statement

The Journal of Integrated Elementary Education (JIEEd) is committed to maintaining an ethical, independent, confidential, fair, and scientifically rigorous peer-review process.

Peer reviewers play an essential role in evaluating manuscript quality, strengthening scholarly arguments, identifying methodological limitations, and supporting the integrity of research in elementary education.

This policy establishes the ethical responsibilities and confidentiality requirements that reviewers must observe before accepting, during the conduct of, and after completing a manuscript-review assignment.

JIEEd follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), internationally recognized standards of scholarly peer review, and applicable Indonesian scientific journal accreditation requirements.

Reviewers must uphold the following fundamental principles:

Independence and objectivity in scientific evaluation.
Confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and editorial information.
Transparency regarding competing interests.
Respectful, constructive, and evidence-based scholarly criticism.
Protection of unpublished research and intellectual property.
Responsible handling of participant information, particularly data involving children.
Prohibition on the use of generative AI in manuscript evaluation.
Accountability for the accuracy and integrity of review reports.

These obligations apply to all reviewers invited or appointed to evaluate manuscripts submitted to JIEEd.

2. Peer Review Model and Reviewer Responsibilities

JIEEd operates a single-anonymous (single-blind) peer-review system.

Under this model:

Reviewers may access the authors' names and institutional affiliations.
Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors through the routine review process.
Manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential editorial materials.
Manuscripts proceeding to external peer review are evaluated by at least two qualified, independent reviewers.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory; final editorial decisions remain the responsibility of authorized editors.

Reviewers are responsible for providing independent scientific assessments based on the manuscript's quality, contribution, methodology, evidence, interpretation, and ethical compliance.

They must not allow personal interests, institutional relationships, academic competition, or other inappropriate influences to determine their recommendations.

Reviewers must comply with the journal's Peer Review Policy, Reviewer Guidelines, AI Use Policy, and Competing Interests Policy.

3. Ethical Responsibilities Before Accepting a Review

Reviewers must carefully evaluate their suitability for an assignment before accepting an invitation.

3.1 Relevant Expertise

Reviewers should accept manuscripts only when they possess sufficient subject-area and methodological expertise to provide a competent assessment.

They should consider whether their knowledge is appropriate for evaluating the research topic, methodological approach, and scholarly contribution.

Reviewers must notify the handling editor when important aspects of a manuscript fall outside their expertise.

3.2 Availability and Timeliness

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they can reasonably complete the review within the specified deadline.

JIEEd typically requests that reviewers complete their assessments within two to four weeks after accepting an invitation.

Reviewers unable to meet the deadline should promptly decline the assignment or communicate their availability to the handling editor.

Unnecessary delays that compromise the editorial process should be avoided.

3.3 Independence

Reviewers should confirm that they can assess the manuscript without inappropriate personal, academic, professional, or financial influence.

3.4 Confidentiality Commitment

By accepting an assignment, reviewers agree to protect the manuscript and associated editorial information.

Reviewers must not accept an invitation with the intention of transferring the manuscript to an unauthorized person, organization, or AI system.

4. Competing Interests and Reviewer Recusal

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could reasonably affect their impartiality.

Relevant circumstances may include:

Recent or ongoing research collaboration with an author.
Current employment at the same institution as the author.
Close supervisory or mentoring relationships.
Financial interests connected with the research topic.
Personal or family relationships.
Significant professional disputes or academic rivalries.
Direct involvement in the research being evaluated.
Competing research activities that may materially affect independent judgment.

4.1 Disclosure Requirements

Reviewers must notify the handling editor of relevant relationships before accepting the review assignment.

Disclosure is required even when the reviewer believes that the relationship will not affect their judgment if a reasonable observer might question their impartiality.

4.2 Withdrawal and Recusal

Reviewers with significant conflicts must decline or withdraw from the assignment.

The handling editor determines whether a disclosed relationship can be appropriately managed or requires replacement of the reviewer.

4.3 Newly Identified Conflicts

If a conflict becomes apparent during the review process, the reviewer must promptly inform the editor.

Reviewers must not conceal relevant relationships or continue evaluating a manuscript when their independence cannot reasonably be maintained.

The journal's Competing Interests Policy provides further guidance.

5. Confidentiality of Submitted Manuscripts

Manuscripts submitted to JIEEd are confidential scholarly documents.

Authors retain legitimate intellectual interests in their unpublished research, data, arguments, and findings.

Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of all materials received through the editorial process.

5.1 Protected Information

Confidential materials include:

Submitted manuscripts and revised versions.
Unpublished research findings and interpretations.
Figures, tables, appendices, and supplementary files.
Research instruments and unpublished datasets.
Author correspondence and revision responses.
Reviewer assignments and assessment reports.
Confidential editorial comments and decisions.
Information about the manuscript's editorial status.
Protected participant and institutional information.

5.2 Prohibited Disclosure

Reviewers must not:

Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.
Forward manuscript files or confidential correspondence to third parties.
Upload manuscript content to public websites or unauthorized platforms.
Discuss unpublished findings outside the authorized editorial process.
Reproduce substantial manuscript content without appropriate authorization.
Disclose reviewer reports or confidential editorial decisions.
Publicly announce that they are reviewing a particular manuscript without authorization.
Use manuscript materials for unrelated purposes.

These restrictions apply whether a manuscript is accepted, rejected, withdrawn, or still undergoing review.

5.3 Continuing Confidentiality

Confidentiality obligations continue after submission of the review report and after the editorial process has concluded.

Publication of an article does not automatically authorize disclosure of confidential reviewer correspondence or unpublished manuscript versions.

6. Intellectual Property and Unpublished Research

Reviewers must respect authors' intellectual property rights and the originality of unpublished scholarly work.

Information obtained during peer review must not be used for unauthorized personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.

6.1 Prohibition of Intellectual Misappropriation

Reviewers must not:

Appropriate unpublished research ideas.
Reuse original analytical frameworks without permission.
Incorporate unpublished findings into their own work.
Use confidential research data for independent studies.
Exploit manuscript information to gain an unfair academic advantage.
Share unpublished material with collaborators for unauthorized research purposes.

6.2 Research Competition

Reviewers who identify substantial overlap between a submitted manuscript and their own ongoing research must assess whether the situation creates a competing interest.

Where necessary, they should disclose the circumstances and withdraw from the assignment.

6.3 Citation and Attribution

Reviewers may recommend relevant literature when scientifically justified.

However, they must not demand unnecessary citations to their own publications, those of associates, or particular journals for the purpose of increasing citation counts or scholarly metrics.

Citation recommendations must be based on genuine scientific relevance.

7. Secure Handling of Manuscript Files and Review Materials

Reviewers must take reasonable precautions when accessing, storing, and handling confidential manuscript information.

7.1 Authorized Access

Reviewers should access manuscripts and submit evaluations through the journal's official Online Journal Systems (OJS) platform or another editorially authorized method.

Account credentials must not be shared with unauthorized individuals.

7.2 Secure Storage

If manuscript files are downloaded for review, reviewers should ensure that they are stored appropriately and protected against unauthorized access.

Reviewers should avoid using shared devices or storage locations that expose confidential manuscript information to other individuals.

7.3 Use of External Platforms

Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts to unauthorized document-sharing platforms, third-party plagiarism services, public repositories, generative AI systems, or other external applications.

Where additional technical analysis or verification is necessary, reviewers should consult the handling editor rather than independently transferring confidential materials to another service.

Reviewers may consult legitimate publicly available scholarly sources without disclosing confidential details of the submission.

7.4 Retention and Disposal

Reviewers should not retain manuscript files for personal use after completing an assignment.

Locally downloaded copies and related confidential materials should be securely deleted or disposed of when no longer required for the authorized review process.

Editorial records maintained within OJS are governed by the journal's relevant retention and privacy procedures.

8. Collaboration and Delegation in Peer Review

Reviewer assignments are made to specific individuals based on their expertise and independence.

A reviewer must not delegate the assessment to another individual without prior editorial authorization.

8.1 Consultation with Colleagues

When a reviewer believes that additional specialist expertise is necessary, the reviewer should contact the handling editor.

The editor may:

Provide clarification.
Authorize appropriate specialist assistance.
Appoint an additional independent reviewer.
Reassign the manuscript when necessary.

8.2 Authorized Contributions

When assistance from a colleague or trainee is explicitly authorized, the contributing individual must comply with the same ethical and confidentiality requirements.

Their involvement must be disclosed to the editor.

The original reviewer remains responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the submitted assessment.

8.3 Unauthorized Delegation

Reviewers must not transfer manuscripts to students, research assistants, colleagues, external consultants, or AI systems without appropriate authorization.

Permission to consult another human expert does not authorize the use of generative AI in manuscript evaluation.

9. Objectivity, Fairness, and Professional Conduct

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit rather than personal preferences or unrelated characteristics of the authors.

9.1 Impartial Evaluation

Reviewers must not discriminate on the basis of:

Nationality or geographical origin.
Gender or religion.
Institutional prestige.
Professional position or academic seniority.
Personal relationships.
Other characteristics unrelated to scientific quality.

Reviewers should recognize that credible research findings may challenge established assumptions or report negative, unexpected, or statistically nonsignificant results.

Such findings should be evaluated according to methodological quality and evidentiary support, not whether they confirm the reviewer's expectations.

9.2 Constructive Scholarly Criticism

Review comments must be:

Scientifically accurate.
Specific and evidence-based.
Respectful and professional.
Relevant to the manuscript.
Clear about essential weaknesses.
Proportionate to the concerns identified.

Reviewers should explain why a revision is necessary and, where appropriate, identify ways to improve the manuscript.

9.3 Prohibited Reviewer Conduct

JIEEd does not tolerate:

Personal attacks or insulting comments.
Discriminatory or abusive language.
Retaliatory evaluation.
Deliberately misleading criticism.
Unjustified recommendations are intended to disadvantage competitors.
Citation coercion.
Unnecessary delays are intended to obstruct publication.
Attempts to pressure editors into a predetermined decision.

Scientific disagreement is acceptable, but it must be expressed through professional and evidence-based reasoning.

10. Ethical Preparation of Review Reports

Review reports must reflect the reviewer's own independent assessment.

Reviewers should critically evaluate manuscripts using criteria appropriate to their research design and article type.

10.1 Evidence-Based Comments

Comments must be supported by specific aspects of the manuscript, relevant methodological principles, or appropriate scholarly literature.

Reviewers should distinguish:

Fundamental scientific weaknesses.
Important but remediable concerns.
Minor presentation problems.
Optional recommendations.

10.2 Confidential Comments to the Editor

Where OJS provides a separate confidential comment field, reviewers may use it to report matters that require editorial attention.

Examples include credible concerns about plagiarism, research misconduct, confidentiality, competing interests, or significant limitations in the reviewer's expertise.

Confidential comments must not be used to conceal ordinary scientific criticism that authors should reasonably have an opportunity to address.

10.3 Editorial Recommendations

Recommendations such as Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject must be consistent with the written review.

Reviewers must not promise acceptance or rejection to authors.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

11. Prohibition of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

In accordance with JIEEd's AI Use Policy and applicable 2026 Indonesian Scientific Journal Accreditation Technical Guidelines, the journal prohibits generative AI use in manuscript evaluation.

Peer reviewers must conduct their assessments independently and must not use generative AI to analyze, evaluate, interpret, summarize, or assess submitted manuscripts or to generate review comments and recommendations.

11.1 Prohibited Activities

Reviewers must not use AI tools to:

Read or summarize a submitted manuscript for review.
Evaluate originality, research methodology, evidence, or findings.
Identify strengths and weaknesses on the reviewer's behalf.
Interpret unpublished research results.
Generate or rewrite substantive review comments.
Produce recommendations concerning manuscript acceptance or rejection.
Upload full manuscripts, excerpts, tables, figures, or supplementary files.
Process confidential author responses or editorial correspondence.
Replace any part of the required independent scholarly judgment.

These prohibitions apply even when the reviewer intends to use AI only as an auxiliary evaluation tool.

11.2 Confidentiality and AI Platforms

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content to external AI systems, regardless of whether the platform is free, subscription-based, or institutionally accessible.

Claims concerning a platform's privacy or security do not override JIEEd's prohibition on AI-assisted manuscript evaluation.

11.3 Reviewer Accountability

The reviewer is personally responsible for the content, accuracy, fairness, and reasoning of the review report.

AI-generated evaluations cannot replace qualified human review.

11.4 Required Compliance

Reviewers must comply with this prohibition throughout the review process.

Any uncertainty concerning permitted tools should be referred to the editorial office before use.

12. Protection of Research Participants and Sensitive Information

JIEEd publishes research involving elementary education and may receive manuscripts containing sensitive information about children, teachers, classrooms, or educational institutions.

Reviewers must exercise particular care when handling such information.

12.1 Research Involving Children

Reviewers should assess whether relevant ethical safeguards have been reported, including:

Ethical approval was required.
Parental or legal guardian consent.
Age-appropriate child assent.
Confidentiality of student records.
Protection of identifiable images or recordings.
Voluntary participation.
Appropriate management of risks and power relationships.

12.2 Confidential Participant Information

Reviewers must not independently contact or attempt to identify research participants.

They must not disclose or transfer confidential student data, school records, interviews, or other protected information.

12.3 Reporting Ethical Concerns

Where participant safety, privacy, consent, or research integrity appears compromised, reviewers should communicate the concern confidentially to the handling editor.

The editor determines the appropriate assessment or referral in accordance with the journal's established ethical procedures.

13. Reporting Suspected Research or Publication Misconduct

Reviewers have a responsibility to inform the handling editor when they identify credible concerns regarding the integrity of a submitted manuscript.

Potential concerns include:

Plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse.
Data fabrication or falsification.
Duplicate or redundant publication.
Manipulation of research findings.
Misleading or fabricated citations.
Authorship irregularities.
Research without required ethical safeguards.
Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.
Undisclosed competing interests.
Improper AI use.

13.1 Reporting Procedure

Reviewers should submit a confidential, factual explanation of the concern through the authorized editorial channel.

The report should identify the relevant evidence or manuscript passages when possible.

13.2 No Unauthorized Investigation

Reviewers must not:

Independently contact authors about suspected misconduct.
Contact research participants or institutions without editorial authorization.
Publicly disclose allegations.
Upload confidential manuscript content to external detection services.
Conduct investigations beyond the authority granted by the journal.

13.3 Fair Assessment

An allegation, similarity score, or AI-detection result alone does not establish misconduct.

Editors are responsible for determining whether a matter requires clarification, additional assessment, or investigation under the Research Misconduct Policy.

Reviewers must distinguish potential misconduct from honest error, inadequate reporting, and legitimate scholarly disagreement.

14. Confidentiality After Peer Review

Ethical responsibilities continue after a reviewer submits a report.

14.1 Continuing Non-Disclosure

Reviewers must not disclose confidential editorial information after the review assignment has ended.

The publication of an article does not automatically permit disclosure of:

Unpublished manuscript versions.
Reviewer identities associated with a specific manuscript.
Confidential review reports.
Internal editorial correspondence.
Confidential research records.

14.2 Reviewer Recognition

JIEEd may acknowledge reviewer contributions through an approved reviewer list or other appropriate recognition arrangement.

Such acknowledgment must not reveal confidential manuscript assignments.

A reviewer being listed publicly as a member of the journal's reviewer community does not imply that their identity may be disclosed in connection with a particular manuscript.

14.3 Post-Review Communication

Reviewers should inform the editorial office if relevant new information emerges that may materially affect their assessment.

They should cooperate with reasonable editorial requests for clarification concerning a completed review.

14.4 Public Discussion of Published Research

After publication, reviewers may engage in legitimate scholarly discussion of the publicly available article.

However, they must not disclose confidential information obtained through peer review without appropriate authorization.

15. Breaches of Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

JIEEd takes credible concerns regarding reviewer misconduct seriously.

Possible violations include:

Unauthorized disclosure of manuscript information.
Undisclosed significant competing interests.
Misappropriation of unpublished scholarly material.
Use of generative AI in prohibited review activities.
Unauthorized delegation of manuscript assessment.
Reviewer impersonation or peer-review manipulation.
Abusive or discriminatory reviewer conduct.
Citation coercion.
Deliberate obstruction of the editorial process.

15.1 Preliminary Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized independent editor assesses the available information.

An allegation alone is not proof of misconduct.

15.2 Opportunity for Clarification

Where appropriate, the reviewer may be asked to explain the circumstances and provide relevant information.

The assessment must be fair, proportionate, and consistent with the journal's ethical procedures.

15.3 Possible Editorial Actions

Depending on the seriousness and evidence of the violation, actions may include:

Identified Concern	Possible Editorial Action
Minor procedural non-compliance	Clarification or reminder of ethical requirements
Undisclosed competing interest	Withdrawal of the assignment or independent reassessment
Inappropriate reviewer comments	Request for correction or exclusion of unsuitable comments
Unauthorized delegation	Withdrawal of the affected review and reassignment
Prohibited AI-assisted review	Disregard of the affected report and replacement with an independent human review
Serious confidentiality breach	Termination of the assignment and further appropriate action
Substantiated serious or repeated misconduct	Removal from reviewer appointments and possible referral to relevant institutions

These actions are not automatic and must be based on the circumstances and available evidence.

15.4 Editorial Accountability

The journal is responsible for maintaining the integrity of its peer-review process.

When a review has been compromised, the handling editor should determine whether an additional independent assessment or other corrective action is necessary.

Allegations involving editors must be handled by an appropriate independent individual.

16. Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality Declaration

JIEEd recommends incorporating an explicit ethics and confidentiality declaration into the OJS reviewer acceptance or review submission process.

Recommended Reviewer Declaration

Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality Declaration

By accepting this review assignment, I confirm that:

I possess the appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
I have disclosed any relevant competing interests and will inform the editor if new conflicts arise.
I will maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, supporting materials, review reports, and editorial correspondence.
I will not share, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for unauthorized purposes.
I will conduct the review independently, objectively, respectfully, and in accordance with scholarly ethics.
I will not use generative artificial intelligence to analyze, evaluate, summarize, or prepare comments or recommendations concerning the manuscript.
I will not upload the manuscript or confidential review materials to AI applications or unauthorized external services.
I will report credible concerns regarding research integrity or participant protection confidentially to the editor.
I will not delegate the review without prior editorial authorization.
I will comply with the journal's Peer Review Policy, Reviewer Guidelines, AI Use Policy, and other applicable ethical requirements.

I understand that violations of these obligations may result in termination of the review assignment or other appropriate editorial action.

17. Policy Implementation and Review

The Editor-in-Chief and authorized editors are responsible for implementing and monitoring compliance with this policy.

The editorial office should ensure that reviewer invitations, review instructions, and relevant OJS forms communicate the applicable ethical and confidentiality requirements.

The journal periodically reviews its reviewer ethics procedures to maintain consistency with scholarly publishing standards, technological developments, research ethics, and applicable regulations.

Substantive changes will be communicated through the journal's official website.

This policy must be read together with the journal's Peer Review Policy, Reviewer Guidelines, AI Use Policy, Competing Interests Policy, Publication Ethics, and Research Misconduct Policy.

Related Journal Policies

Peer Review Policy
Reviewer Guidelines
Publication Ethics
Research Misconduct Policy
Plagiarism and Similarity Screening
AI Use Policy
Competing Interests Policy
Research Data Policy
Appeals and Complaints Policy
Privacy Statement

Ethical Guidance and References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) — Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
COPE — Core Practices
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) — Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process
ICMJE — Use of Artificial Intelligence in Publishing
Republic of Indonesia — Technical Guidelines for Scientific Journal Accreditation (2026), Section C.3: Artificial Intelligence Use Policy.