Peer Review Process / Policy

1. General Overview of Peer Review Process

Basically, the submitted manuscripts will be evaluated by a reviewer appointed by the editorial board.

The submitted manuscripts will be reviewed for the first time by the Editor in Chief for language suitability and conformity with the scope of the journal and writing procedures according to the author gudilines. If according to the editor the manuscript is fit for review by a team of reviewers consisting of 2 people, then the manuscript will be sent to the reviewer, but if the manuscript does not match the initial criteria, then the manuscript will be returned to the author.

A review team of 2 people will conduct a review using the Blind review process method where the reviewer will not know the author's name in the manuscript. The assessment criteria include originality, significance and writing. Editorial Board has the authority to accept or reject the submitted manuscript, as well as ask the author to send back the submitted manuscript.

Plagiarism screening of texts submitted to this journal is carried out with the help of TURNITIN apps. The more plagiarism, the article will be immediately rejected (if more than 20% does not include a bibliography). 

 

2. Spesific Overview of Peer-Review Process

Reviewers will be asked to provide comments in a detailed and constructive manner where the comments will be the basis for consideration for editors to reject or accept articles that have been submitted. Some things that need attention from the reviewer are as follows:

a. Originality and significance

Reviewers are asked to discuss the originality of the findings submitted in an article. In addition, reviewers should see whether the findings can significantly influence the scientific community. If the reviewer finds the same work as the article being reviewed, the reviewer can provide suggestions or criticism to improve the way the research results are delivered.

b. The novelty of the theoretical approach and how to discuss the problems

Reviewers are asked to discuss the novelty of the theoretical approach and the way the authors discuss the results of research to solve problems. This novelty element can usually be seen in the introduction section as an introduction to the urgency of the research that has been done.

c. Strengths and weaknesses of the method used

Reviewers are expected to be able to assess the method used. Statistical analysis or other analytical methods that affect the interpretation of results should be criticized in order to improve the quality of the article being reviewed.

d. Reliability of the appearance of research results and conclusions

Reviewers are expected to be able to assess the reliability of the research results and conclusions obtained. This reliability can be assessed through the completeness of the analysis and the data that has been obtained.

e. Layout alignment with the guidelines

Alignment with the guidelines will make it easier for editors to do the editing and lay-outing process. Many writers often ignore this and only format their writing incompletely and perfectly according to the guidelines given. Reviewers can assess this but the main focus is on the content and some previous points.

f. Suggestion and feedback

When found several errors or shortcomings of an article, the reviewer is expected to be able to show clearly, which parts should be improved and what needs to be done to improve the quality of the article.

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.