Eduistiqomah in Mathematics Education (EIME) applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of every manuscript considered for publication.
The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and relevance to the subject of the submitted manuscript.
All manuscripts must be submitted electronically through the EIME online submission system. Authors are required to ensure that their manuscripts comply with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, ethical requirements, and manuscript template.
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have approved the submitted manuscript and that the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.
Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team.
The editorial screening evaluates:
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements or fall outside the journal's scope may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
EIME normally assigns at least two independent reviewers to each manuscript.
Reviewers are selected based on:
Reviewers should not be selected when they have a personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship with the authors that could compromise the impartiality of the review.
EIME uses a double-blind peer-review model.
Under this process:
Authors should therefore remove identifying information from the manuscript file used for peer review where required by the journal's submission system.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to scholarly and methodological criteria, including:
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that can assist authors in improving their manuscripts.
Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editor.
When revisions are required, authors must submit:
Authors should indicate the location of substantial changes in the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The editorial team may request additional revisions if the revised manuscript does not adequately address the reviewers' concerns.
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial revisions are required.
The purpose of subsequent review rounds is to determine whether:
The number of review rounds may vary depending on the complexity and quality of the manuscript.
The editor makes the final decision based on:
Possible final decisions include acceptance, revision, or rejection.
The editor may reject a manuscript even when one reviewer recommends acceptance if the manuscript does not meet the journal's overall academic and editorial standards.
Once a manuscript has been accepted, it proceeds to the editorial production stage, which may include:
Authors may be asked to review the final proofs before publication and are responsible for identifying any remaining factual or typographical errors.
After the final version has been approved, the article is published online as part of the scheduled journal issue.
Published articles receive appropriate bibliographic metadata and DOI information where applicable and are made openly accessible in accordance with the journal's Open Access Policy.
All manuscripts submitted to EIME are treated as confidential documents.
Editors and reviewers must not:
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.
A reviewer should decline the assignment when a conflict of interest could reasonably affect the objectivity of the review.
Editors are also expected to manage conflicts of interest and may reassign manuscripts when necessary to maintain editorial independence.
EIME expects reviewers to provide fair, constructive, timely, and academically grounded evaluations.
Reviewers should:
EIME aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining rigorous peer-review standards.
The approximate editorial workflow is:
Initial Screening: 1–2 weeks
External Peer Review: 2–4 weeks
Author Revision: 1–4 weeks, depending on the revision required
Final Editorial Decision: 1–2 weeks after revision
Production and Publication: 1–3 weeks after acceptance
These timelines are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the volume of submissions.
EIME does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a specific period.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that the decision resulted from a significant factual error, procedural problem, or serious misunderstanding of the manuscript.
Appeals must provide a clear and evidence-based explanation and should be submitted to the editorial office.
Appeals are reviewed independently by the editor or an appropriate member of the editorial team. The decision following an appeal is final unless substantial new evidence warrants further consideration.
SUBMIT ARTICLE
ARTICLE TEMPLATE ENGLISH
ARTICLE TEMPLATE INDONESIA
CITEDNESS IN SCOPUS
Contact us
Tools
 |
 |
INFORMATION
