Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

JPTERA implements a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific contribution of every submitted manuscript. Each submission undergoes the following stages:

1. Preliminary Evaluation (Editorial Screening)

All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor to assess:

- Relevance to the journal’s scope

- Originality and novelty

- Adherence to author guidelines

- Completeness of required files

- Compliance with ethical standards

Manuscripts that do not meet basic criteria may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected before peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

JPTERA uses a double-blind review system, where the identities of authors and reviewers are kept anonymous. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate submissions based on:

- Clarity of the research problem and objectives

- Theoretical and methodological rigor

- Validity and reliability of the data

- Originality and scientific contribution

- Relevance to physics or physics education

- Quality of analysis and discussion

- Clarity of writing and manuscript organization

- Ethical compliance

Reviewer recommendations may include: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Resubmit for Review, or Reject.

4. Revision Process

Authors must respond to reviewer comments and provide:

- A revised manuscript

- A response document detailing changes made

- Tracked changes file (if required)

Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by reviewers depending on the extent of revisions.

5. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Section Editor makes the final decision based on reviewer comments and editorial judgement. Possible decisions include:

- Accept

- Accept with minor edits

- Further revision required

- Reject

6. Editing and Publication

Accepted manuscripts move to the editing stages, including copyediting, layout, and proofreading. Authors review galley proofs before final publication in the Current Issue.

7. Plagiarism Screening

All manuscripts are checked using Turnitin or equivalent plagiarism detection tools. Submissions with similarity index above 20% (excluding references) may be returned or rejected.

8. Review Timeline

- Initial screening: 1–2 weeks

- Peer review: 3–6 weeks

- Author revisions: 2–4 weeks

- Final decision: 1 week

Estimated total process: 6–12 weeks, depending on reviewer responsiveness.

9. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are required to:

- Maintain confidentiality

- Declare conflicts of interest

- Provide objective and constructive feedback

- Evaluate manuscripts based solely on academic merit

This peer-review process follows ethical standards recommended by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).