Review Process

Reviewers will review the material according to the standard substance of the article. If the contents of the article deviate significantly, please write down your comments.

  • Title: The title should describe the subject of the manuscript adequately, clearly, accurately, and not multiple interpretations. Also, the titles should show results instead of processes. Please advise the title if necessary.
  • Abstract: The abstract should state briefly, clearly, and accurately what the author does and affirm the key discovery. Please remind that the abstract is the most read part of the article.
  • Chapter I Introduction: The introduction should contain general background, state-of-the-art review, gap analysis or scientific novelty statement, research problem or hypothesis, approach problem solving, clearly contribution, and the purpose of the review of the article. Articles should have sufficient referrals in this chapter. Please provide your view and reference suggestions that the Author should include.
  • Chapter II Research Methods: Research Methods should describe the stages and research methods. The tool/material/framework/platform/model/equation used has been well explained so that the experiment can be repeated with the same result. Give your rating and comments.
  • Chapter III Results and Discussion: This chapter should contain the scientific findings of the research results: (1) what are the findings/innovations, (2) why they happen, (3) conformity or conflict with other people's research results characterized by citation, (4) both theoretical and implementation implications of the research. Give your rating and suggestions.
  • Chapter IV Conclusions: The conclusions should contain enough summaries to answer the hypotheses and/or research objectives. Give your ratings and suggestions.
  • Duplication: The manuscript should not repeat the published work of the author or anyone else. Check whether the paragraph or sentences can be shortened without losing the content by combining two or more tables and images. The reviewers can provide some comments if there is duplication in the text.
  • Calculation: In some randomly selected cases, reviewers check whether you can verify the author's calculations.
  • Linking Text with Tables and Drawings: All tables and images should be referred to in text/paragraphs. The statement in the text should match the contents of the table and the image.
  • References: All references used in the manuscript must be listed in the References. It must contain at least 20 references with 80% from primary references (scientific journals, article proceedings, reference books, thesis/dissertation) and published the latest 5 (five) years.

 

Delivering the Review Results

Once you are ready to review, reviewers can download the additional/supplementary article. You can fill out a review form and/or comment and/or upload a file containing your results. You are expected to provide recommendations regarding the quality of the article. The review should be completed within 4-6 weeks. If you need more time, you can send it to the Editor via email at idea@unsrat.ac.id

 

What should I consider before accepting an invitation to review?

  • Is this article in my area of expertise?
  • Am I able to provide a quality, in-depth review within 4-6 weeks, in line with the expedited peer review process (i.e., submission-to-publication time of 10 to 12 weeks)?
  • Do I have a conflict of interest with the author(s)? For example, have I worked with them on an article in the past, were any of them my advisors or my students, do we share an institution? If so, I should decline to review. Please note that this journal follows a single- anonymized peer review process, where the identities of the reviewers are not known to the authors, but the reviewers know the identities of the authors. Please be sure to maintain anonymity when submitting reviewer comments by ensuring that any files you upload do not contain your name, email address, or initials.
  • Can I keep the confidentiality of the article? IDEA Journal requires that reviewers treat the contents of articles under review as confidential information not to be disclosed to others before publication.

 

If I accept to review, what will I be asked to evaluate?

Reviewers will be asked to answer the following questions when completing a review on an article:

  1. Does the title of the paper accurately reflect the major focus contribution of this paper? Is the abstract an appropriate and adequate digest of the work?
  2. Is the paper clear, concise and well organized & presented?
  3. Rate of the contribution strength to the field and scientific quality is represented in this paper?
  4. Is the paper written in correct English? Is the paper free from obvious errors, misconceptions, or ambiguity?
  5. Please mark appropriate scale for the overall grade for this paper? (A score of 7 or above typically provides ground for IDEA journal acceptance):

 

 

What type of decision should I recommend?

Since IDEA journal provides four recommendations of decision process, you may recommend decisions of either Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision or Reject. The decision options you can choose from when reviewing an article are detailed below:

Accept: Reviewers should only recommend accept without minor edits required prior to publication. Ideally, the article should be able to be published as is. Please keep in mind that when you recommend acceptance of an article, the authors will not be expected to show the changes made. It is also worth noting that you should only recommend accept if the article fits the criteria for an article to be accepted in IDEA Journal

Minor Revision: Reviewers should only recommend Minor Revision if there are minor edits required prior to publication (grammar, minor edits to figures or graphs, etc)

Major Revision: Reviewers should recommend this decision if the article has merit but requires updates before it can be published. Manuscript needs some improvement regarding the explanation of content, background, methods and results and additional testing and experiments are required.

Reject: Reviewers should recommend this option if they believe the manuscript does not provide significant contributions or does not align with the scope of IDEA Journal. In such cases, reviewers should provide clear and detailed explanations for the rejection, highlighting specific shortcomings in novelty, relevance, or technical depth.

 

Please keep in mind that, while reviewers provide guidance and a recommendation, Associate Editors use

their own judgement in conjunction with the reviewers’ comments to make the final decision.

 

What are the criteria for an article to be accepted?

The criteria for an article to be accepted for publication in IDEA Journal include:

  1. The article should be original writing that enhances and contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the given subject area. Original review articles and surveys are acceptable, even if new data/concepts are not presented, but there must be a clear advance over existing **If you have any concerns about plagiarism, please alert the Associate Editor or article administrator immediately. Please do not run the manuscript through any plagiarism software. Each article submitted to IDEA Journal is scanned for plagiarism and evaluated during our thorough prescreening process.
  2. Results reported have not been submitted or published elsewhere (although expanded versions of conference publications as well as preprints are eligible for submission).
  3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.
  4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the
  5. The article is written in Standard English with correct
  6. Appropriate references to related prior published works must be
  7. The article falls within scope of IDEA Journal.

 

What makes a good quality review?

Summarize the work, comment on its overall merits and drawbacks, and provide constructive, substantial feedback. Consider the strength of the technical content. Does the literature review provide sufficient background and motivation for the work? Review the theoretical/experimental depth, strength of analysis, quality of supporting data and results. Is there sufficient benchmarking and validation, are the conclusions supported by the data and analysis, is the flow of information logical? Is there enough information in this paper for the experiments to be reproducible? If not, comment on what additional or supplementary information is needed. Are there any major technical flaws?

Comment on the article’s technical presentation and organization. Consider things like structure of the paper, language, writing style, quality of figures and tables, typos, formatting.

 

Can I ask authors to cite specific references?

Suggesting specific references, including articles you have authored, if not relevant to the article or at an excessive level, is not permitted. You are expected to check if the references are current and relevant to the subject. If you feel that the authors have overlooked important prior research, we encourage you to recommend particular topic areas, rather than specific articles, to improve their literature review and/or better highlight the advantages over the state-of-the-art. If there are any irrelevant, inappropriate, or unnecessary references, be sure to mention this in your comments to the authors.

We of course realize that sometimes authors may miss crucial references to seminal work, or even very recent publications that the authors would benefit from seeing, so if you are going to recommend specific references while completing the review, please be sure to explain why you believe they are relevant to the work.

Can I use Artificial Intelligence tools (such as ChatBot, Google Bard, ChatGPT, etc...) to assist me when writing my review?

No. Reviewers conducting peer reviews for journal may not share information from an article with public artificial intelligence (AI) platforms for AI generation of text for the reviewer’s report. Doing so is considered a breach of confidentiality because AI systems generally learn from input. All reviewers conducting peer reviews for journal are required to provide substantive feedback, writing original review comments for the author’s and editor’s consideration. We expect reviewers to be responsible for comments they return on any article. You were invited to review because of your personal expertise and insight, which cannot be replicated by an AI tool.

 

What should I consider if I am reviewing a resubmission (i.e., a previously rejected article)?

You should evaluate the updated manuscript, any supplementary information, as well as the authors’ response to reviewers’ document to determine if all your concerns have been addressed, and that you are satisfied with the updates. You may also wish to comment on how well the authors addressed the concerns of the other previous reviewers as well, or if you agree or disagree with the feedback from the other reviewers (based on the response to reviewers provided by the authors).

While we typically ask the original reviewers to take another look at the revised article, sometimes one or more are unavailable. Since IDEA Journal policy requires that every article is reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers, we may need to invite a new reviewer on a resubmission. If you are reviewing a previously rejected article and did NOT review an earlier version, we still ask that you evaluate as outlined above and decide whether you have new feedback to provide for the authors.

 

What is the purpose of “Confidential Comments to Editor”?

If you have thoughts on the article that you prefer the editor not share with the authors, use the space provided.

 

Can I request a review deadline extension?

Yes, reviewers can request a deadline extension as needed. Since IDEA Journal has an expedited peer review process, we can only provide deadline extensions of 1 – 2 weeks maximum.

 

==================================================================================

Information about IDEA journal

IDEA Journal is an international journal focusing on Informatics, Data, and Emerging Applications, consistently publishing original research and developments across the field of interest. The journal offers free article processing charges (APC) and is known for its rapid peer review and publication process, typically taking 6 to 8 weeks. Additionally, all articles are open access, ensuring broad accessibility to readers worldwide.

The journal publishes high-impact articles that are original, technically sound, and clearly presented. Its scope covers all areas of Informatics and Data, with a strong emphasis on application-oriented research and Emerging Applications.

For more information on the journal, please visit our website at https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/v3/index.php/idea

 

What does IDEA Journal expect from reviewers?

Reviewers should:

  • Be experts of the subject area of the article they agree to
  • Complete the review within 4 weeks. Extensions can be given as needed, especially for longer
  • Decline the review invitation if they have a conflict of interest (COI) with any of the authors of the
  • Treat the contents of articles under review as confidential information. Reviewers should not make inappropriate use of the special knowledge that the access to the articles provides.
  • Evaluate the unique contributions, technical soundness, and presentation style of the articles. Comment on the overall merits and drawbacks of the manuscript, provide constructive, substantial feedback and make a recommendation (Accept/Revision/Reject) to the best of their
  • Judge if the study is well-designed and executed, and if the data provided is sufficient to support the conclusion. Check if the illustrations, tables and graphs support the text.
  • Determine if the article makes significant advancement to the field. Please note that IDEA Journal articles are not necessarily expected to have a high level of novelty, but they should be distinct from previous publications and technically sound.
  • Check if the references are sufficient and applicable. Please note that suggesting one’s own references as a reviewer if not relevant to the article, or at an excessive level, is unethical and is not permitted.
  • Alert the Associate Editor, the administrator, or the editorial office if they suspect that any part of the article was plagiarized.
  • Practice ethical behavior. Contacting the authors regarding the manuscript while the article is under review is an example of unethical behavior.