Eduistiqomah in Philosophy (EIP) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, scholarly relevance, and integrity of all manuscripts considered for publication. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to support objective, independent, and impartial scholarly evaluation.
All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal's official Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.
Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial screening to assess:
The Editorial Board may reject manuscripts at this stage when they are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially fail to meet minimum scholarly standards, or present ethical or originality concerns.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening undergo an editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Academic Editor.
The editorial assessment considers:
Only manuscripts considered sufficiently suitable are forwarded to external peer review.
Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected based on:
Where appropriate, the Editorial Board may appoint additional reviewers when reviewer recommendations substantially differ or when specialized expertise is required.
EIP employs a double-blind peer review system.
Under this system:
The journal takes reasonable measures to preserve reviewer and author confidentiality throughout the review process.
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:
Does the manuscript provide an original argument, interpretation, conceptual development, theoretical contribution, or meaningful synthesis?
Does the manuscript address a substantive philosophical problem or question that is relevant to the journal's scope?
Are the central concepts, terms, assumptions, and theoretical positions clearly defined and consistently used?
Is the philosophical argument logically coherent, adequately developed, critically reasoned, and supported by appropriate evidence or textual analysis?
Does the manuscript engage meaningfully with relevant philosophical literature, including significant contemporary scholarship and primary philosophical sources where appropriate?
Does the manuscript advance, challenge, reconstruct, extend, or critically evaluate existing philosophical knowledge?
Is the philosophical approach appropriate and sufficiently explained for the research problem?
Does the manuscript adequately interpret its argument in relation to existing scholarship and explain its theoretical or philosophical implications?
Does the conclusion clearly follow from the analysis and articulate the principal contribution of the manuscript?
Is the manuscript clearly written, well organized, appropriately referenced, and compliant with the journal's formatting requirements?
Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantial revisions required.
The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited revisions to address specific issues identified by the reviewers.
The manuscript has scholarly potential but requires substantial revision to its argumentation, theoretical framework, analysis, methodology, literature engagement, or presentation.
The manuscript requires extensive redevelopment before it can be considered for publication as a substantially revised submission.
The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, ethical, methodological, or scope requirements and is not suitable for publication.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, specific, and academically justified comments.
A reviewer report should generally address:
Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns that affect the scholarly validity of the manuscript and minor concerns related to clarity, formatting, language, or presentation.
All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential scholarly documents.
Reviewers must not:
Any potential conflict of interest must be disclosed to the Editorial Office immediately.
Reviewers must decline the review assignment if they have a conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality.
Potential conflicts may include:
When a potential conflict is identified, the editor may appoint an alternative reviewer.
When revisions are requested, authors must revise the manuscript carefully and respond to all substantive reviewer and editor comments.
Authors should provide a point-by-point response explaining:
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when the editor considers additional external assessment necessary.
A revised manuscript may undergo a second round of peer review when:
The number of review rounds may vary depending on the complexity and quality of the manuscript.
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor based on:
A positive reviewer recommendation does not automatically guarantee publication.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript when substantial concerns remain regarding scholarly quality, originality, ethical compliance, or suitability for the journal.
EIP seeks to conduct the review process efficiently while maintaining scholarly rigor.
Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the period specified by the Editorial Office. If a reviewer is unable to complete a review within the requested period, the editor may extend the deadline or appoint another qualified reviewer.
Authors are expected to submit revisions within the timeframe specified in the editorial decision.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that the decision resulted from a significant factual error, misunderstanding of the manuscript, procedural irregularity, or demonstrably inappropriate review.
Appeals must be submitted to the Editorial Office with a clear and reasoned explanation. The appeal should address substantive issues rather than simply disagreeing with the reviewers' academic judgment.
The Editor-in-Chief will evaluate the appeal and may seek an additional independent opinion where appropriate. The decision following an appeal is normally final.
EIP expects all participants in the peer-review process to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity.
Editors and reviewers must:
Reviewers must not use generative AI systems to process, upload, summarize, analyze, or evaluate confidential manuscript content where such use could compromise confidentiality or intellectual property.
Reviewers remain personally responsible for the confidentiality, integrity, and scholarly judgment of their reviews.
If AI-assisted tools are permitted for limited administrative or language-related purposes under the journal's applicable policy, reviewers must ensure that no confidential manuscript information is disclosed.
Once a manuscript receives a final acceptance decision, it proceeds to the editorial production stage.
The production process may include:
Authors are responsible for carefully checking the final proof and reporting any substantive errors before publication.
The EIP peer-review workflow can be summarized as follows:
Submission → Initial Editorial Screening → Editorial Assessment → Reviewer Selection → Double-Blind Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Revision → Additional Review if Necessary → Final Acceptance → Copyediting and Proofreading → Publication
This process is designed to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of originality, philosophical rigor, conceptual clarity, scholarly significance, academic integrity, and relevance to contemporary philosophical discourse.
Editorial decisions are made independently on the basis of scholarly merit, relevance, originality, quality, and ethical compliance. No author, reviewer, institution, sponsor, or other external party may improperly influence editorial decisions.
The Editorial Board is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, rigorous, and academically independent peer-review process for all manuscripts submitted to Eduistiqomah in Philosophy (EIP).
SUBMIT ARTICLE
ARTICLE TEMPLATE ENGLISH
ARTICLE TEMPLATE INDONESIA
Tools
 |
 |
CITEDNESS IN SCOPUS
Contact us
INFORMATION
