All manuscripts submitted to Ar-Riyadhiyyat: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika undergo a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process before a decision is made. The process follows the Core Practices and the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and is carried out through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) of this journal so that every step can be verified.

Type of Review

The journal uses double-blind peer review. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors, throughout the review process. Authors must remove their names, affiliations, and any identifying information from the manuscript file and the file properties before submission.

Stages of the Review Process

1. Submission and initial check. The editorial office checks that the manuscript is within the focus and scope of the journal, follows the Author Guidelines and the article template, and is complete. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are returned to the authors before review.
2. Similarity screening. Every manuscript is screened with Turnitin as described in the Plagiarism Policy. Manuscripts with an overall similarity index above 25% are returned to the authors for revision before review begins.
3. Editorial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief, or a handling editor assigned by the Editor-in-Chief, assesses the originality, relevance, and general quality of the manuscript. Manuscripts that are clearly unsuitable may be rejected at this stage without external review.
4. Assignment to reviewers. Each manuscript that passes the initial assessment is sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject area. The editors avoid assigning reviewers who work at the same institution as the authors or who have a conflict of interest, as described in the Conflict of Interest policy.
5. Review. The reviewers evaluate the manuscript using the review form in OJS and give a recommendation together with written comments for the authors. The criteria include originality and contribution, relevance to the journal’s scope, soundness of the research design and methods, validity of the analysis and conclusions, quality of the literature review and references, clarity of presentation, and ethical aspects of the research.
6. Editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief makes the decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations and comments. When the reviewers disagree substantially, the editors may invite an additional reviewer before deciding.
7. Revision. Authors whose manuscripts require revision must submit the revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers or assessed by the editors.
8. Final decision and production. After the final decision, accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, proofreading by the authors, and publication in the next available issue.

Editorial Decisions

The possible decisions after review are:

• Accept submission: the manuscript is accepted for publication, with at most minor editorial changes.
• Minor revision: the manuscript is acceptable after small corrections by the authors.
• Major revision: the manuscript requires substantial changes and is reviewed again after revision.
• Decline submission: the manuscript is rejected and cannot be published in the journal.

The decision and the reviewers’ comments are sent to the authors by email and through OJS.

Review Timeline

Stage	Target time
Initial check and similarity screening	Within 15 days of submission
Review by each reviewer	Within 30 days of accepting the invitation
First editorial decision	Within 8 weeks of submission
Revision by authors (minor revision)	Within 14 days of the decision
Revision by authors (major revision)	Within 30 days of the decision

Reviewers who cannot complete the review on time are asked to inform the editors so that the manuscript can be reassigned.

Similarity and Editorial Decisions

The similarity report is an indicator for editorial judgment and not, by itself, a verdict of plagiarism. The editors examine where the overlap occurs, how it is attributed, and whether it comes from a single source or from many small matches. A manuscript with a low overall similarity can still be rejected if the editors find uncited copying, and a manuscript with a higher similarity can proceed when the overlap is legitimate and properly cited. Plagiarism found during or after review is handled according to the Plagiarism Policy and the procedure for allegations of research misconduct.

No Fast-Track and No Guaranteed Acceptance

• The journal does not offer fast-track publication, and every manuscript follows the same review process regardless of the author’s identity, institution, or position.
• The journal does not promise or guarantee acceptance, before or during review, and no payment or other consideration can influence the editorial decision.
• A Letter of Acceptance (LOA) is issued only after a manuscript has been formally accepted. No letter stating that a manuscript will be accepted is issued during review.

Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, and Use of AI

• Confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, discuss, or use any part of a manuscript before publication, and must not upload it to any AI tool or application.
• Conflict of interest. Reviewers must decline a manuscript if they have a conflict of interest with the authors or the research. Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or journal staff are handled by an editor who has no association with the submitting person, and that person has no access to the review of the manuscript.
• Use of AI. Reviewers are not permitted to use AI tools to evaluate manuscripts or to write review reports. Editorial decisions are always made by humans. Further provisions are set out in the Generative AI Policy.
• Objectivity. Reviews must be objective and constructive. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate, and reviewers must support their opinions with clear arguments.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit an appeal, and anyone may submit a complaint about the review process. The procedure is described under Complaints and Appeals in the Publication Ethics page.