Peer Review Process

Smile: Science and Mathematics Learning Media employs a double-blind peer review process. In double-blind review, both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors must ensure that manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not reveal their identity, directly or indirectly (see the Author Guidelines for anonymization instructions).

Every manuscript submitted to this journal is evaluated based on its originality, scientific merit, relevance to the journal's focus and scope, and contribution to the development of science and mathematics learning media. The review process is designed to be rigorous, fair, and timely.

Review Stages

1. Initial Editorial Screening (1–3 working days)

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor checks the manuscript for:

• Conformity with the journal's Focus and Scope;
• Completeness of required files (manuscript, cover letter, author statement, etc.);
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines and formatting template;
• Basic scientific soundness and coherence.

Manuscripts that do not meet these initial requirements will be returned to the author(s) without further review (desk rejection).

2. Plagiarism Screening (concurrent with initial screening)

All manuscripts that pass the initial screening are checked using a plagiarism-detection tool (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate). Manuscripts with a similarity index above 20% will be returned to the author(s) for revision or rejected, depending on the nature of the overlap.

3. Editor-in-Chief/Section Editor Desk Review (3–7 working days)

The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript's scientific quality, novelty, and suitability for peer review. At this stage, the manuscript may be:

• Forwarded to peer reviewers;
• Returned to the author(s) with editorial feedback for revision prior to review;
• Rejected, if it is judged unsuitable for the journal (e.g., insufficient novelty, out of scope, major methodological flaws).

4. Double-Blind Peer Review (2–4 weeks)

Manuscripts that pass the desk review are sent to a minimum of two (2) independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area (Biology, Physics, Chemistry, or Mathematics education, or learning media development). Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Originality and novelty of the research/development;
• Scientific soundness of the methodology;
• Clarity and validity of the results and discussion;
• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
• Quality of writing and adherence to the journal's formatting standards;
• Adequacy of literature review and citation practices.

Each reviewer provides one of the following recommendations:

• Accept — the manuscript is acceptable for publication as is;
• Minor Revision — the manuscript requires small changes before acceptance;
• Major Revision — the manuscript requires substantial changes and a further round of review;
• Reject — the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal.

If the two reviewers' recommendations differ significantly, the Editor-in-Chief may invite a third reviewer to help reach an editorial decision.

5. Editorial Decision (within 1 week after reviews are received)

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision and communicates it to the author(s) along with the reviewers' comments (with reviewer identities withheld).

6. Author Revision

Authors are given a maximum of 14 working days (for minor revisions) or 30 working days (for major revisions) to submit a revised manuscript, accompanied by a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.

7. Re-Review (if applicable)

Manuscripts requiring major revision may be sent back to the original reviewers to verify that the concerns raised have been adequately addressed.

8. Final Decision, Copyediting, and Layout

Once the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copyediting, proofreading, and layout formatting prior to publication.

9. Online Publication

The final version of the manuscript is published online according to the journal's issue schedule.

Estimated Timeline

Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the responsiveness of authors during the revision process.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, and confidentially;
• Disclose any potential conflict of interest and decline to review if one exists;
• Provide comments that help authors improve the quality of their manuscript, regardless of the final recommendation;
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks);
• Refrain from using public generative AI tools to process or evaluate manuscript content, in line with the journal's AI Usage Policy.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of the manuscript's academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope, independent of the authors' race, gender, nationality, religion, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs, and independent of any commercial consideration.