Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Early Childhood Education & Parenting (ECEPA) promotes research in the field of early childhood education, parenting, and ethno parenting  with particular respect to Indonesia, but not limited to authorship or topical coverage within the region. Contributions are expected from lecturers, researchers, teachers, and students at advanced stages of their research. To be published in ECEPA, a rigorous review process will be done.

The editorial contents and elements that comprise the journal include:

  • theoretical articles

  • empirical studies

  • case studies

  • systematic literature review.

The editorial board welcomes innovative manuscripts from early childhood education, parenting and field. The scope of journal are  

  • Early Childhood Education 

  • Early Childhood Development 

  • Early Childhood Issues 

  • Learning Media in Early Childhood Education

  • Learning Strategies and Methods in Early Childhood Education

  • Learning Models in Early Childhood Education

  • Learning Content in Early Childhood Education

  • Learning Evaluation in Early Childhood Education

  • Early Childhood Education from an Islamic Perspective

  • Early Childhood Education Abroad

  • Early Childhood Education Across Countries & Cultures

  • Child Rights

  • Neuroscience

  • Parenting

  • Family Education

  • Ethnoparenting

  • Ethnopaedagogic

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Publication Frequency

ECEPA issues twice a year (January and July). Each issue consists of 5-20 articles and therefore each volume has max 40 articles/reviews.

 

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.

 

Archiving

ECEPA makes article metadata available in compliance with Open Archives Initiative protocols, enabling automated 'harvesting' of our research articles for inclusion in any other digital archives. We support non-exclusive digital archiving of research articles by as many international archives as possible, to ensure the security and permanent accessibility of that research.

 

Plagiarism Screening

Before going through to review process, all manuscripts will be checked that they are free from plagiarism practice (less than 30% similarities). If there is an indication of plagiarism (higher than 30% similarities), the manuscript will instantly be rejected.

 

Editor(s)'s Duties

  1. Publication decisions. Editor(s) has a right to take decision whether the article is accepted/published or not. The first result is based on editor’s decision. If the article passes the first editor decision, it goes to the second result guided by the decision of reviewers. Editors collect, compile, and decide from reviewers’ comments. Several points can be used to take decision by editor: the policies of the journal's editorial board such as focus and scope, novelties, legal requirements, libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

  2. Fair play and confidentiality in taking care article. All articles received by editors must be taken care without author(s)'s race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophies. All data during the reviewing and editing processes must be taken confidentially. Editors and journal’s staff must not share and disclose any information about the article that submitted to the journal to other people, except authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.

  3. Conflicts of interest. Without the author's clear written approval, including peer-review-derived sensitive information and ideas, the editor may not use disclosed unpublished materials for their research. Editors should abstain from reviewing and evaluating manuscripts when they have conflicts of interest resulting from cooperative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, businesses, or institutions; thus, the editor must ask co-editor, associate editor, or other editors to review and consider the manuscript. The authors should complete any pertinent competing interests, including publishing revisions if there are any discovered after the article has been published. If required, the action must be adopted, such as a publication.

  4. Complaints and investigations. When there is a complaint regarding ethical concerns raised on the submitted or published article, the editor should work with the publisher to take reasonable action, such as revision, correction, retraction, expression of concern, and other notes that are relevant. However, all actions must be done by additional confirmations and communications with authors to take action fairly.

 

Reviewer(s)'s Duties

After passing the first screening by editor, to get fair reviewing process, our journal usually proceeds each article with at least 2 reviewers: 1 internal reviewer (from Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia) and the others are external reviewers:

  1. Roles, Promptness, Confidentiality, and Fair Play Process in Reviewing. The reviewers help editors in giving judgments fairly without personal critism, suggestions/ideas to improve article qualities via peer reviewing process. Communication is only done between the reviewers and the editors, and there is no communication between the reviewer and the authors. All communications must be done via a formal scholarly communication in a time manner. If reviewer feels to be unqualified for reviewing the article, reviewer must inform and notify editor as soon as possible. Reviewers just give suggestion, while the final decision for the publication is on Editor. Article and all peer reviewing processing documents are confidential. The reviewer cannot discuss with authors or anybody without editor's permission.

  2. Acknowledgment. The reviewer should point out pertinent published works that the authors have not cited, giving ideas and claims based on a certain observation, deduction, or argument. The reviewer also informs and notice for any significant overlap or resemblance between article under consideration and any other published material based on reviewer’s knowledge.

Conflict of interest. Without the author's express written authorization and editor’s permission, the reviewer may not use any unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their work. All peer review process is privileged knowledge. Thus, ideas must be kept secret and confidential, as well as not used for the reviewer’s benefit. Reviewers should not take into account in the reviewing process when they have relationships or links with any of the authors, organizations, or businesses associated with the articles.

 

Indexing

This Journal is indexed by

 

Fee

Due to the rising costs of academic publications, starting 2024, publication fees shall be implemented to all accepted papers (submission paper is free). This journal charges the following author fees (Article Publication Fee):
- Indonesian authors: 500.000 IDR per article
- International authors: 50 USD per article

 

Peer Review Process

Author(s) must submit a manuscript through the system to be considered for publication in journal published by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Please submit the manuscript on ECEPA journal’s website https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/ECEPA/user/register. 

For being published, manuscript must go through a peer review process (blind-reviewing process). We only publish articles that have been reviewed and approved by highly qualified researchers with expertise in a field appropriate.

The acceptance or rejection of manuscript submitted by author(s) will be decided by the editorial boards, which is based on the review results. The first screening is the content/scope as well as the novelty of the article submitted, which is done by the editor. After passing the first screening, to get a fair reviewing process, our journal usually proceeds each article with at least 3 reviewers: 1 internal reviewer (from Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia) and the others are external reviewers.

There are no communications between authors and reviewers during the reviewing process. Also, there are no communications between authors and editors regarding the rejection decision.

Authors whose papers are accepted, revised, or rejected will be informed of the results by the reviewers.

 

The steps for the reviewing process are in the following figure.


In short, the steps are:

  1. Manuscript Submission (by author) (route 1)

  2. Manuscript Check and Selection (by manager and editors) (route 2). Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review. Prior to further processing steps, plagiarism check using Turnitin is applied for each manuscript

  3. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers) (route 3-4)

  4. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on reviewers comments) (route 5)

  5. Paper Revision (by author)

  6. Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestion (by author) with similar flow to point number 1 (route 1)

  7. If reviewer seems to be satisfied with revision, notification for acceptance (by editor) (route 6)

  8. Galley proof and publishing process  (routes 7 and 8)

Steps points number 1 to 5 are considered as 1 round of peer-reviewing process (see grey area in the figure). And, our reviewing process at least goes through 2 round of reviewing process.

The journal editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

(i)   accept without any changes (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper in its original form

(ii)  accept with minor revisions (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections

(iii) accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance ): the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors

(iv) revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes

(v) reject the paper (outright rejection): the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions