Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The focus and scope of the article consists of (1) curriculum of mathematics education, (2) teaching and learning methods of mathematics, (3) instructional for mathematics, (4) information and technology-based mathematics learning, (5) assessment and evaluation of mathematics, (6) creativity and innovation in mathematics learning, (7) Lesson Study of mathematics learning, and others in correlation to improve the better quality of mathematics education.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Jurnal Elemen is a scientific publication in the sense that the only scientific merits are accepted manuscripts, and have never been published. The review process is carried out involving the author, editor, section editor, and reviewer. Every submitted manuscript is first checked by the editor if the article meets the focus, scope and guidelines for writing Jurnal Elemen, the manuscript is continued to the reviewer to review the content and novelty of the manuscript, otherwise, the manuscript will be returned to the author. Each manuscript will be examined by two reviewers for 6 weeks with the criteria for the assessment of the manuscript as stated in the Article Assessment Form for reviewers.


Publication Frequency

Jurnal Elemen is published twice a year, in January and July, respectively.


Open Access Policy

The Jurnal Elemen provides open access to benefit anyone for valued information and findings. Jurnal Elemen can be accessed and downloaded for free, no charge. However, if the data in this article is used as material in writing articles or anything else, you must quote and include the name of the author of the article in the article created.



Jurnal Elemen adopts the LOCKSS system to create a distributed filing system among participating libraries and allows the library to create permanent archives of journals for preservation and restoration purposes.


Access and Download Policy

The Jurnal Elemen provides open access to benefit anyone for valued information and findings. Journal of Elements can be accessed and downloaded for free, free of charge, in accordance with the creative commons license use.


Guidance for Editors

Editor as one of the users of Jurnal Elemen has a robust role in maintaining the quality of journal management. Therefore, Jurnal Elemen sets a guide for editors that refer to the guidelines for editors recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The followings are the editor should consider a manuscript review submitted by the author:

  1. Is scientific research valid and clearly presented; e.g. is the sample size adequate? Is the finding adequately presented and clearly explained? When the researcher considered possible biases, does this study contribute sufficiently to the development of science and is it acceptable?
  2. Is there no ethical violation in the research or writing report process?
  3. Does it have benefits that outweigh the disadvantages?
  4. If there is any doubt about a specific law or regulation, the editor should clarify this with the author and ask them to provide a letter from the individual research ethics committee or research ethics committee in certain institutions.
In addition, editors should also consider whether the paper submitted by the author meets the focus and scope, guidelines and templates for writing articles in Jurnal Elemen. Besides that, the editor must also check the level of similarity of a manuscript by Similarity Check Result which is attached to the step 4 when submitting the article. The editor also assesses the similarity level of the article using Plagiarism Checker X (checking after submission) and iThenticate (before publishing).


Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Reviewer as one of the users of Jurnal Elemen has an robust role in maintaining the quality and integrity of a manuscript submitted to the Jurnal Elemen. Therefore, Jurnal Elemen provides guidelines for reviewers recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewer should consider the following:

  1. responsible professionally
  2. Objective
  3. Appropriateness in reviewing

Furthermore, during the review process, reviewers must highly pay attention to the following points:

  1. Getting started: Read the manuscript, supplementary data file (if any), and additional material thoroughly (if any), return to the journal if anything is unclear and ask for something incomplete that you need. Do not contact the author directly without the journal's permission.
  2. Confidentiality: Respect the confidentiality of the review process and stop using information obtained during the review process for your own or others' interest, or to harm or discredit others. Do not involve others in the review of the manuscript without first obtaining permission from the journal.
  3. Bias and interests: Reviewers must be fair, objective and not racist. If you do not match the manuscript assigned, you should inform the editor about it in order that the manuscript is reviewed by other proper reviewers who fit their fields.
  4. Suspicion of ethical violations: If you see irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics, please kindly inform the journal. For instance, you may have concerns that errors occurred during research or writing and submission of manuscripts, or you may see substantial similarities between the manuscripts and concurrent submissions to other journals or published articles or other ethical issues, contact the editor directly regarding this and do not attempt to investigate by yourself. It is appropriate to cooperate with the journal, but not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.
  5. Transfer of reviews: If you have reviewed an article in another journal and the article was rejected and submitted to the Jurnal Elemen, then you should review the manuscript again, maybe the manuscript has undergone improvements and you already know the shortcomings of the manuscript beforehand.

Before comments addressed, there are a number of things to consider, for example:

  1. Format: Follow the journal's guides for commenting. If a specific score format or rubric is required, use the tools provided by the journal. You must be objective and constructive in commenting, providing feedback that will help the author improve their manuscript. Be professional and not be hostile or inflammatory and from making personal comments that defame or insult the author.
  2. Appropriateness of feedback: Remember that editors take a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the articles. You should give a recommendation whether the manuscript is accepted/revised/rejected; each recommendation must match the comments given in the review. Be sure your comments and recommendations to editors are consistent with your reports for authors.
  3. Language and style: use a language and writing style that both authors and editors can completely understand.
  4. Suggestions for further work: You should make suggestions if something goes wrong in the manuscript in addition to adding new revision.
  5. Accountability: Do not make negative comments that are unfair or include criticism that is not justified. Do not suggest the authors to include citations to your (or co-workers) work just to increase the number of citations or to increase the visibility of yours or your colleagues' work; suggestions must be based on valid academic reasons. Do not intentionally lengthen the review process, either by delaying submission of your review or by requesting additional, unnecessary information from journals or authors.

The stages of conducting a review on the reviewer account are:

  1. Login using a reviewer account.
  2. Click the title of the article to review or the one assigned to be reviewed.
  3. Give a response, if you are willing to review, click 'Will do the review', and then send an email to the editor by just clicking the email sign next to 'Will do the review'. However, if you do not, click 'Unable to do the review', then send an email to the editor by one-step clicking the email sign next to 'Unable to do the review'.
  4. If you are willing to do a review, the reviewer must follow the guidelines and templates for writing articles.
  5. Download the article by just clicking the article file.
  6. Provide comments online by clicking the 'Review form' mark, tick the appropriate ones for the article. Also, comment directly on the article file.
  7. Reviewers MUST upload the commented file directly on the article by selecting 'Choose File' (select the article file that has been commented on), then clicking 'Upload'.
  8. Provide recommendations to the editor regarding the status of the article by selecting one of the 'Recommendations', then click 'Submit Review To Editor'.