Peer Review Process

Every manuscript submitted to Journal of Smart Learning Media undergoes a strict and rigorous peer-review process. The following is the editorial workflow that every manuscript must undergo:

1. Initial Screening

Upon receipt, the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor will perform an initial check of the manuscript to ensure:

  • The manuscript falls within the scope and focus of the journal.

  • The manuscript complies with the Author Guidelines and template.

  • The similarity index is below 20% (checked using Turnitin/iThenticate).

Manuscripts that fail to meet these initial criteria will be rejected (Desk Reject) without being sent to reviewers.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers. JOSLEM employs a double-blind review method, where the authors remain anonymous to the reviewers and vice versa throughout the process.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and lack of conflict of interest. They are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and novelty.

  • Methodological rigor.

  • Clarity of presentation.

  • Contribution to the field of physics education.

3. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports and recommendations, the Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted without any changes.

  • Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor changes. The author must submit the revised version within the specified timeframe.

  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires major changes/substantial rewriting. It will likely undergo another round of review after resubmission.

  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected.

4. Reasons for Rejection

Common reasons for the rejection of a manuscript include, but are not limited to:

  • Out of Scope: The topic is not relevant to physics education or scientific research as defined by JOSLEM.

  • Formatting Issues: The manuscript does not follow the Author Guidelines or template strictly.

  • Methodological Flaws: There are fundamental errors in the research design, data analysis, or interpretation.

  • Lack of Novelty: The study does not offer significant new insights or contributions.

  • Plagiarism: The manuscript shows a high similarity index (above 20%) or contains unethical overlaps with existing publications.

  • Unresponsiveness: The author refuses to address the reviewers' suggestions without a logical or scientific basis.