Gerasi in Mathematics Education (GIME) 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 do not have access to the identity of the authors, and authors do not receive information identifying the reviewers.
All manuscripts submitted to GIME are first examined by the editorial team to determine whether they meet the journal's basic requirements.
The initial screening considers:
The editorial team may reject manuscripts at this stage if they are clearly outside the journal's scope, fail to meet basic academic or ethical requirements, or do not demonstrate sufficient scholarly quality.
Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening may undergo plagiarism and similarity screening using appropriate detection tools.
The editorial team evaluates the similarity report in context. A similarity score alone is not considered sufficient evidence of plagiarism.
Manuscripts containing substantial evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate text reuse, or other forms of academic misconduct may be rejected.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.
Normally, a manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.
Reviewers are selected based on:
The editorial team may replace a reviewer when necessary, including situations involving conflicts of interest, lack of expertise, excessive delay, or other circumstances that may compromise the review process.
GIME uses a double-blind peer-review model.
Under this model:
Authors should therefore ensure that the submitted manuscript does not contain unnecessary information that directly reveals their identities.
Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to academic and methodological criteria relevant to mathematics education.
The review generally considers:
After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide comments and recommendations to the editor.
The possible recommendations include:
Reviewers should provide constructive, objective, specific, and evidence-based comments that can assist authors in improving the manuscript.
The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editor.
After receiving the reviewers' reports, the editor evaluates the manuscript and the recommendations provided by the reviewers.
The editor may make one of the following decisions:
The manuscript is considered suitable for publication with no substantive revisions required.
The manuscript requires limited revisions before publication. The revised manuscript may be checked by the editor without being returned to the reviewers.
The manuscript requires substantial revision concerning methodology, theoretical foundation, analysis, discussion, structure, or other important aspects.
The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
The manuscript has potential but requires significant improvement before a publication decision can be made. The revised manuscript will normally undergo another round of peer review.
The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements and is not considered suitable for publication.
When revisions are requested, authors must submit:
Authors should explain clearly how each comment has been addressed.
Where authors disagree with a reviewer's recommendation, they should provide a clear academic justification supported by appropriate evidence or references.
The editorial team may request additional revisions if the response does not adequately address the reviewers' concerns.
Revised manuscripts requiring substantial changes may be returned to the original reviewers.
The second-round review focuses primarily on whether:
Additional rounds of revision may be conducted when necessary.
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
Reviewers must not:
Review reports should be submitted exclusively through the journal's designated review system.
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.
A reviewer should decline the invitation if:
Editors may also replace reviewers when a conflict of interest is identified.
Reviewers are expected to:
Reviewers should not recommend citations solely to increase their own citation counts or those of a particular journal or group.
Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and ethical standards of the manuscript.
Editorial decisions should not be influenced by:
The editorial team maintains responsibility for the final publication decision.
GIME aims to conduct the peer-review process in a timely and transparent manner.
The duration of the review process may vary depending on:
The journal does not guarantee a fixed review or publication period because maintaining the quality and integrity of the review process is the primary consideration.
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual or procedural error may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office.
Appeals must provide:
An appeal must not simply disagree with the reviewers' opinions. The appeal should demonstrate a substantive issue in the review or editorial process.
The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized senior editor will evaluate the appeal. The decision following an appeal is normally final.
If concerns regarding research or publication ethics arise during peer review, the editorial team may suspend the review process while the matter is investigated.
Potential concerns may include:
Where appropriate, the journal may request clarification, supporting documentation, ethical approval records, or other evidence from the authors.
A manuscript is formally accepted for publication only after the editorial team determines that it has satisfied the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, and editorial requirements.
Acceptance may be conditional upon completion of final editorial revisions, language editing, formatting, reference checking, and other publication requirements.
Acceptance for publication does not mean that the manuscript will be published immediately. Publication is subject to the journal's production schedule and completion of the editorial process.
After final acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage.
The production process may include:
Authors may be asked to review the final proof and report any substantive errors before publication.
GIME is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, confidential, and academically rigorous peer-review process.
The journal continuously evaluates and improves its editorial and peer-review procedures to ensure that published research meets appropriate scholarly and ethical standards.
The peer-review process is intended to improve the quality of submitted manuscripts while ensuring that publication decisions are based on academic merit, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity.
SUBMIT ARTICLE
ARTICLE TEMPLATE ENGLISH
ARTICLE TEMPLATE INDONESIA
Tools
 |
 |
Contact us
VISITOR STATISTICS
