Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

JISIP (Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Pendidikan) 
was published by Lembaga Penelitian dan Pendidikan (LPP) Mandala
articles that are based on the results of conceptual research and studies in the field of social science and education such as
(1) Assessment and Evaluation; (2) Higher Order Thinking;
(3) Learning Resources; (4) Models of Teaching;
(5) Teacher Professional Development; (6) Learning and Cognitive Style;
(7) Sport Science and Education; (8) Character Building;
(9) Art and Educational Linguistics; and
(10) Education Research of Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The author is expected to pay attention to the following points before entering the article in the Prisma Science Journal:

  1. Articles are not the result of the plagiarism of other people's articles. JISIP (Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan pendidikan) will ensure that every published article will not exceed 20% similarity Score (Articles found with plagiarism more than 20% are automatically rejected and authors are advised, if the article has a simmilarity below or equal to 20%). Plagiarism screening will be conducted by Editorial Board using Turnitin® Plagiarism Checker.
  2. The article entered is never published and is not in the process of being published in another journal.
  3. The submitted articles are adjusted to the JISIP (Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan pendidikan) template.

Peer review is designed to assess the contribution, validity, relevance, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.

From a publisher’s perspective, peer review functions as a filter for content, directing better quality articles to better quality journals and so creating journal brands.

Running articles through the process of peer review adds value to them. For this reason, publishers need to make sure that peer review is robust.

Reviewer can state the following four views for the submitted manuscript:

  • Acceptance for publication
  • Acceptance for publication after minor revision (it is decided after revisions are checked by the editorial board)
  • Reviewing again after the major revision is done. After revision is made by the writers of the study, it is evaluated for the second tour.
  • It is not published (rejection)

After reviewers’ evaluation is completed, views of the Reviewer are examined at least two weeks by editors and field editors.

Editors and field editors give final decision for the study by taking into consideration of views and suggestions of Reviewer. The final decision is sent to the author.

Editor Feedback

"Pointing out the specifics about flaws in the paper’s structure is paramount. Are methods valid, is data clearly presented, and are conclusions supported by data?” (Editor feedback)

“If an editor can read your comments and understand clearly the basis for your recommendation, then you have written a helpful review.” (Editor feedback)

Peer Review at Its Best

What peer review does best is to improve the quality of published papers by motivating authors to submit good quality work – and helping to improve that work through the peer-review process. 

In fact, 90% of researchers feel that peer review improves the quality of their published papers (University of Tennessee and CIBER Research Ltd, 2013).

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.