Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Each article submitted be evaluated by a Section Editor. Section Editors can directly reject or request revisions or accept articles. The article received is forwarded by the editorial team to the review process by the reviewers registered on the JUMPA review page. The review system uses the principle of double-blinded-review, which means that neither the author nor the reviewer knows their identity or is anonymous. The review process is maximum 1 (one) month. 
Reviewer only evaluates the quality and substance of the article, which includes: originality, potential impact, questionist status, benefits, and validity as well as the authenticity of the reference or list of libraries. The review form below can be used as a tool.

Review Form

This form is only a means of review and does not replace the actual review.
In-depth reviews are expected from the reviewers, with the aim of providing revised material to the authors so that the article becomes more and more fruitful.
Please answer any question with these three possible answers: Yes / Partly / No

Is the title polite and does not invite unnecessary controversy?

Whether the title already reflects the core of the writing, as well as being plain, informative, specific, and effective in representing the entire writing.

Is the abstract already clear, concise, as complete asalligus captures the essence of the entire article?

Does the abstract already have at least: the purpose of research, a brief explanation of methods, and important findings of research?

Do the keywords selected already describe the important ideas in the related article?

Is the article within the scope of Catholic Education?

Does this article contain novelty in terms of research objects, approaches, methods, and findings according to the field of science concerned?

Are the research methods described together with an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the research carried out?

Has the research process been systematically outlined until the findings have been obtained?

Does the research in the article already meet the criteria for productive research, which means that it has a positive impact on the development of science as well as problem solving?

Does the article have weighted and authentic primary reference sources (based on quality research) and corresponding to its theme?

Do the other reference sources not exceed 50% of the primary reference resources?

Are the sources of reference from the last 10 years' publications (excluding the Bible, classical church documents, theological writings or classical philosophy that are still relevant)?

Is the analysis and synthesis done by the author properly describing the ideas and theories of the reference sources, whether it is a correction or confirmation of previous findings?

Is the resulting punch sharp, accurate, and profound?

Has the conclusion already listed any new findings that could be: theory, formula, postulate, method, theorem, prototype, or equivalent?

Can the summons be held accountable with sufficient valid data?

Is the discussion reaffirmed sharply and concisely the findings of the research accompanied by issues for further discussion?

Does the outcome of the research have such great ethical consequences that it requires no obstat from the Magisterium?

Article Publishing Process 

Submitted article by author
The Editor Division performs an initial evaluation: checks for plagiarism and checks the article for conformity with the writing guidelines.
Editorial decision given: article rejected or forwarded to review process.
The editor's team submits the article that has passed the evaluation for review according to the double-blinded-review principle. Reviewer performs the review (maximum 1 month). The review results are forwarded to the author for revision as requested by the reviewer. (bisa reviewer yang sama atau berbeda tergantung keputusan editor bagian atau editor kepala). If necessary, make a second revision, dst.
Rejection or acceptance of articles is the right of the editor's team.
Received articles are forwarded to the proofreader.
The editor-in-chief approves the publication and proceeds to the layout editor.
Confirmation to the author and publication.