Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Journal Sekolah Dasar: Kajian Teori dan Praktik Pendidikan publishes articles on conceptual ideas, studies and application of theories, practical writing, and research related to Primary Education, which includes, but not limited to:

Policy and Practice Primary Education
School Management and Leadership in Primary School
Cognitive Development of Children in Primary School
Science and Mathematics Education in Primary Education
Social Science Education in Primary Education
Language and Literacy Education in Primary Education
Civics and Moral Education in Primary Education
Character Building in Primary Education
Art and Creativity in Primary Education
Physical Activity and Health in Primary Education
Special Needs Education in Primary Education
Effective Teaching Strategies in Primary Education
Development of Educational Technology in Primary Education
Assessment in Primary Education
Guidance and Counseling in Primary Education



Section Policies

Front Cover

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Back Cover

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts must be original submissions that have not been published elsewhere and are not under consideration at any other print or online journal or magazine.

Each manuscript undergoes a double-blind review. A manuscript will be fully accepted only after all the revisions required by the editor and the reviewers have been made.

All submitted papers are subject to double-blind review, i.e. authors and reviewers are unaware of the identity of each other. Two or more reviewers will review submitted articles. The Journal endeavors to maintain a rapid review process. The average review time is eight weeks. Authors may be requested for revisions until the paper satisfies the quality of the Journal.


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.


Manuscript Witdrawal

Manuscript withdrawal is strongly discouraged, it is a waste of valuable resources that the publisher put. If the author still requests withdrawal of their manuscript, the following guidelines have to be followed

  • Manuscript withdrawal will be permitted only for the most compelling and unavoidable reasons. It is unacceptable to withdraw a manuscript  from a journal because it is being accepted by another journal;
  • The author should submit a request to the editorial office as a letter signed by all authors stating the full cause that led to the step of manuscript withdrawal;
  • Authors must not assume that their manuscript has been withdrawn until they have received an appropriate notification to this effect from the editorial office.


Publication Ethic

Author Responsibility
1.Reporting Standards:
 The author who wrote the research report must present an accurate report of the work that has been done and discuss the purpose of the significance of the study. The underlying data should be accurately described in the draft of the research report. The research report should contain enough details and references to enable others to imitate the work. Reports containing fraud or deliberate inaccurate data are unethical and unacceptable behavior.
2.Data and Retention Access:
 Where necessary the author is required to provide raw data related to editorial requirements. Authors must be prepared to provide such data within a specified time period.
3.Originality and Plagiarism:
 The authors must ensure that the written works are fully original and if the author uses the work and / or sentence of another person then must use the citation or quoted correctly.
4.Double publishing or content similarity:
 A writer should not publish a script that describes the same research essence in more than one journal or publisher. Sending the same script to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.
5.Recognition Source:
 Appropriate recognition of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications or ideas that are influential in determining the nature of the work reported.
6.Report compilers:
 The authors' names should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the concept, design, implementation or interpretation of reported research. Anyone who has contributed significantly should be listed as a co-author . Parties who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project must be recognized or registered as contributors. The lead author must ensure that the co-authors whose names are included in the report are truly eligible for inclusion, and that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the report and have agreed to publish the report.
7.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:
 All authors should disclose in the report script any financial conflicts or substantive conflicts of interest that may be expected to affect the results or interpretation of the report text.
8.Fundamental mistakes in published works:
 When the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the published work, the author is obliged to immediately notify the journal or publisher editor and work with the editor to retract or refine the work.
9.Risks and Humans or Animals as Subject:
 If the study involves chemicals, procedures or equipment at high risk of use, the authors should mention them in the report script.
Editor's Task
1.Justice Principle :
 The editor always evaluates the intellectual content of the manuscript irrespective of race, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
 The editor and any editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing any information about the manuscript submitted to anyone other than potential authors, reviewers , reviewers , editorial advisers and publishers.
3.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:
 Unpublished material but mentioned in a submitted manuscript should not be used in a personal research editor without the written consent of the author.
4.Publication Decision:
 The editorial board of the journal is responsible for deciding on articles to be published. Editors may be guided by the policy of the editorial board of the journal and limited by legal provisions such as defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors can negotiate with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
5.Script Review:
 The editor must ensure that any initial manuscript has been evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should manage and use peer review fairly and wisely. The editor should explain the peer review process in informing the author and indicate which parts of the journal are reviewed. The editor must use appropriate peer reviewers for the publication script by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding people with conflicts of interest.
The reviewer's job
1.Contribution to Editorial Decision:
 Peer review helps editors in making editorial decisions and through editorial communication with authors can also assist authors in improving the quality of the manuscript.
 Any reviewer who is selected but feels ineligible to review the research reported in the script or know that a quick review is impossible should then notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
3.Standards of Objectivity:
 Review must be done objectively. The personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supportive arguments.
 Any submitted manuscript for review should be a confidential document. Scripts should not be displayed or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.
5.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:
 Important information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers are prohibited to associate manuscripts with conflicts of interest caused by competitive, collaborative, or other relationships and any connection with any of the authors, companies or institutions associated with the report's manuscript.
6.Recognition Source:
 The reviewer must identify the published works that are relevant but not yet quoted by the author. A statement that previously observed observations, derivations, or arguments must be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should also increase the editor's attention on substantial or overlapping equality between the reviewed script and any other publication of papers they know.