Peer Review Process

This process involves the evaluation of submitted manuscripts by experts in the field before publication. In this article, we present a comprehensive peer-review process for an online journal system.

  1. Submission and Initial Screening:
  • Authors submit their manuscripts through the online journal system (Link: Template Bahasa; English and Submission).
  • The editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's scope, guidelines, and formatting requirements.
  • Submissions that do not meet the initial criteria are returned to the authors with appropriate feedback.
  1. Selection of Reviewers:
  • The editor-in-chief or assigned editors select appropriate reviewers based on their expertise and knowledge in the subject area.
  • Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the authors or the manuscript being reviewed.
  • Reviewers are approached to evaluate the manuscript within a specified timeframe, usually 2-4 weeks.
  1. Reviewer Evaluation:
  • Reviewers thoroughly evaluate the manuscript, focusing on its scientific merit, originality, methodology, clarity, and significance.
  • Reviewers may provide comments, suggestions, and criticisms to help improve the manuscript.
  • Reviewers also assess the compliance of the manuscript with ethical guidelines and research standards.
  • Reviews are carried out anonymously
  1. Reviewer Recommendations:
  • Based on their evaluation, reviewers make one of the following recommendations: a) Acceptance without revisions. b) Acceptance with minor revisions. c) Major revisions required. d) Rejection.
  1. Author Revision:
  • In case revisions are requested, authors are provided with the reviewers' comments and recommendations.
  • Authors revise the manuscript accordingly, addressing each point raised by the reviewers.
  • Authors may also include a point-by-point response to address the reviewers' comments.
  1. Reviewer Re-evaluation:
  • Revised manuscripts are sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
  • Reviewers assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the initial concerns and suggestions.
  • Reviewers provide a recommendation based on the revised version.
  1. Editor's Decision:
  • The editor-in-chief or assigned editors consider the reviewers' recommendations and make the final decision: a) Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted for publication. b) Acceptance with revisions: Minor revisions are requested before final acceptance. c) Major revisions required: The manuscript requires significant revisions and another round of review. d) Rejection: The manuscript is rejected for publication.
  1. Communication with Authors:
  • The editor-in-chief or assigned editors communicate the decision to the authors.
  • In the case of revisions, authors are provided with the reviewers' comments and recommendations.
  • Authors are given a specific timeframe to complete the revisions.
  1. Final Evaluation:
  • Revised manuscripts are assessed by the editor-in-chief or assigned editors to ensure that all revisions have been addressed adequately.
  1. Publication:
  • Accepted manuscripts are published in the online journal system, either immediately or according to the journal's publication schedule.
  • Authors are notified when their articles are officially published.

Implementing a robust peer review process for an online journal system ensures the quality and credibility of published articles. This process involves initial screening, expert reviewer evaluation, author revision, and final decision-making by the editor-in-chief or assigned editors. Effective communication between reviewers, authors, and editors is crucial to facilitate constructive feedback and improve the overall quality of scholarly publications.