Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika (Jupitek) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and academic rigor. To ensure the integrity and quality of all published work, every submission undergoes a stringent editorial process centered on a double-blind peer review system. The following sections detail our policies and the step-by-step journey of a manuscript from submission to publication.

1. Initial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to assess its suitability for the journal. This includes a check for compliance with the journal's focus and scope, adherence to author guidelines, and screening for plagiarism using iThenticate software. Manuscripts that fail this screening will be desk-rejected without proceeding to further review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are subjected to a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This means that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential from each other to ensure objectivity and impartiality.

• The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor assigns the manuscript to at least two (2) independent reviewers. These reviewers are selected from a panel of national and international experts in the specific field of mathematics education relevant to the submission.

• Reviewers are chosen based on their academic expertise and publication record.

3. Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following core criteria:

• Originality and Significance: Does the paper present novel findings and contribute substantially to the field of mathematics education?

• Methodological Rigor: Is the research design sound, appropriate, and clearly explained? Are the data analysis and interpretation valid?

• Clarity and Presentation: Is the paper well-organized, clearly written, and logically argued?

• References: Are the citations relevant, up-to-date, and accurately presented?

Reviewers provide a detailed report and recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept without Revision

• Minor Revisions Required

• Major Revisions Required

• Reject

4. Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief considers the reviewers' reports and makes the final decision on the manuscript. This decision, along with the anonymized reviewers' comments, is communicated to the corresponding author.

5. Revision Process

• For manuscripts requiring revisions, authors are expected to submit a revised version along with a point-by-point response to all reviewers' comments, explaining how each comment has been addressed.

• The revised manuscript is typically sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. This iterative process may continue until the reviewers and editors are satisfied with the manuscript.

6. Final Acceptance and Publication
Once a manuscript is finally accepted, it is forwarded to the production team for copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. The corresponding author approves the final proofs before the article is published online.

We strive to complete the entire peer review process within 60 days of submission. However, the complexity of the revisions and reviewer availability may sometimes affect this timeline.

All manuscripts must be submitted in clear and coherent English. Authors whose first language is not English are strongly encouraged to have their manuscripts professionally proofread before submission to ensure academic quality and clarity.