Editorial Quality Assurance
Peer Review Process
Instructional Design and Ethical Pedagogy (IDEP)
Review Model
Double-Blind Peer Review
Instructional Design and Ethical Pedagogy (IDEP) applies a double-blind peer-review process to manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening. Under this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another to support impartial, independent, and academically responsible evaluation.
Manuscripts are evaluated not only for methodological quality and scholarly contribution, but also for their alignment with the journal's specialized scope. The central focus must be instructional design in higher education, supported by original primary empirical data and substantive integration of ethical principles, moral values, character formation, and religious values.
Review Workflow
01
Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the IDEP online submission system and are responsible for ensuring completeness, originality, anonymity of the review file, and compliance with the journal's author guidelines.
02
Administrative & Technical Check
The Editorial Team checks manuscript completeness, formatting, author information, declarations, references, supporting information, and compliance with basic submission requirements.
03
Editorial Scope Screening
The Editor evaluates whether the manuscript fits the distinctive scholarly identity and mandatory scope requirements of IDEP before external peer review.
04
Originality & Research Integrity Check
The manuscript is examined for originality, appropriate attribution, potential duplication, ethical research conduct, and other matters relevant to publication integrity before being forwarded for external review.
05
Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers whose expertise is relevant to instructional design, higher education, research methodology, and the value dimensions addressed by the manuscript.
06
Double-Blind External Review
Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript's originality, research design, data quality, analytical rigor, interpretation, contribution to instructional design, and substantive integration of ethics, morality, character, and religious values.
07
Author Revision
When revision is requested, authors are expected to respond systematically to reviewer and editor comments, revise the manuscript carefully, and provide a clear response explaining how each substantive concern has been addressed.
08
Editorial Decision
The Editor evaluates reviewer reports, author revisions, methodological quality, scope alignment, and overall scholarly contribution before making the final editorial decision.
Mandatory Desk Review Criteria
Before external peer review, every manuscript must satisfy all of the following conditions:
01. It reports original primary empirical research.
02. The study is situated within higher education.
03. Instructional design is the central object of investigation.
04. Ethical principles are explicitly embedded in the instructional design.
05. Moral values are explicitly embedded in the instructional design.
06. Character formation is explicitly embedded in the instructional design.
07. Religious values are explicitly embedded in the instructional design.
Reviewer Assessment Criteria
Originality
Novelty of the research question, empirical evidence, argument, and contribution to existing scholarship.
Instructional Design
Clarity, coherence, theoretical grounding, implementation, and evaluation of the instructional design examined.
Methodological Rigor
Appropriateness of research design, participants, instruments, data collection, analysis, validity, and interpretation.
Value Integration
Substantive integration of ethics, morality, character formation, and religious values within the instructional design.
Results & Interpretation
Accuracy, transparency, consistency, and appropriate interpretation of empirical findings.
Scholarly Contribution
Contribution to value-integrated instructional design scholarship and higher education practice.
Possible Editorial Decisions
Accept
Accepted for publication
Minor Revision
Limited revision required
Major Revision
Substantive revision required
Reject
Not suitable for publication
Final Editorial Authority
Reviewer recommendations provide essential scholarly input but do not independently determine publication. The Editor-in-Chief and authorized editors retain responsibility for the final editorial decision after considering reviewer reports, author responses, research integrity, scope compliance, methodological quality, and the manuscript's contribution to IDEP.
Confidentiality & Conflict of Interest
All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, unpublished findings, and related materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and should decline an assignment when independence or impartiality may reasonably be compromised.
Principle of Peer Review
The peer-review process of IDEP is guided by independence, confidentiality, fairness, methodological rigor, scholarly integrity, constructive criticism, and freedom from conflicts of interest. Acceptance for publication is based on scholarly merit and alignment with the journal's editorial scope rather than authors' institutional, national, religious, or personal backgrounds.
Peer Review Flow
Submission → Technical Check → Scope Screening → Integrity Check → Double-Blind Review → Revision → Editorial Decision → Publication