About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Media Teknologi Hasil Perikanan (Media of Fishery Product Technology) is a scientific periodical published by PS. Fisheries Product Technology, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, UNSRAT. This media will publish the latest research and literature results in the field of Fishery Product Technology, particularly those related to the application of technology for improving the quality of fishery products, developing new fishery products, safety of fishery products, utilization of fishery product waste and other topics that are closely related to the utilization and processing of fishery products that can be utilized by humans.

Peer Review Process

The suitability of manuscripts for publication in Media Teknologi Hasil Perikanan  is judged by peer reviewers and editorial board. All the review process are conducted in peer review. Chief Editor handles all correspondence with the author and makes the final decision as to whether the paper is recommended for acceptance, rejection, or needs to be returned to the author for revision.

Editor and Section Editors will evaluate the submitted papers on prequalification step for the suitability of further review process. The manuscripts will be evaluated by two peer reviewers selected by Editor and Section Editors. The peer reviewers should examine the manuscript and return it with their recommendation to the Editor or Section Editors as soon as possible, usually within 3 weeks. If one of peer reviewers recommends rejection, the Editor in Charge will ask a third reviewer or Section Editors to decide the acceptance or rejection of the paper.

Papers needing revision will be returned to the authors, and the authors must return the revised manuscript to the Editorial Office via OJS of Media Teknologi Hasil Perikanan. Editor in Charge sends the revised manuscript to Section Editors to check whether the manuscript is revised as suggested by peer reviewers. Sections Editors could give recommendation to Editor that the manuscript should return to authors, accept, or reject within 2 weeks. After acceptance letter sent by Editor, the manuscript is forwarded to the technical editor for editing and layout process. Chief Editor would send a letter announcing the publication issue and invoice attached with PROOF to authors.

There are four steps of revision process by authors: 1) revision manuscript to accommodate Section Editors suggestions (prequalification step) within 2 weeks; 2) revision manuscript to accommodate peer reviewer suggestions within 2-4 weeks; 3) revision to accommodate Section Editors suggestions within 2-4 weeks (if any); and 4) revision to accommodate editorial meeting suggestions within 1 week (if any). Manuscripts that exceed the revision deadline will be withdrawn. Authors may request for extension to Chief Editor before the revision expires. The time interval from the date the manuscript is submitted to the acceptance for publication varies, depending on the time required for review and revision process.

Manuscripts are rejected usually for 3 general reasons: 1) The topic of manuscript does not fit in the journal scope and may be better suited for publication elsewhere. 2) The substance of the manuscripts does not meet Media Teknologi Hasil Perikanan standards; the data may be incomplete; the methodology used is not appropriate; lack of novelties and no advancement of the existing knowledge; or there are no consistency among objectives, research design/method, evidence, and conclusion. 3) The manuscript is not written following Media Teknologi Hasil Perikanan guidelines in Instruction to Authors. These manuscripts may be rejected without review process. Manuscripts could also be rejected in the review process if Authors do not revise the manuscripts as suggested by reviewers and editorial board, also do not give response/rebuttal against the suggestions.

If manuscript is rejected, the author will be notified by Chief Editor with a statement of reasons for rejection. The author may appeal to Chief Editor if he or she believes an unfair judgement has been made which encloses the author reasons. Chief Editor will review and discuss the reasons with Section Editors responsible for the manuscript, and later decide whether to accept or deny the appeal. The author(s) will receive the final version of the manuscript as a PDF file. PROOF of all manuscripts will be provided to the corresponding author. The PROOF should be read carefully, checked against the typed manuscript, and the corrections may be returned within 7 days.

Authors submitting manuscripts should understand and agree that copyright of manuscripts of the article shall be assigned/transferred to by Media Teknologi Hasil Perikanan. The statement to release the copyright to Media Teknologi Hasil Perikanan is stated in Template Etika Pengarang. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA) where Authors and Readers can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, as well as remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, but they must give appropriate credit (cite to the article or content), provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

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.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines for Media Teknologi Hasil Perikanan

To access Reviewer Guidelines in Indonesian please click Panduan untuk Reviewer MTHP


1- Preparation before reviewing.

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review an article from Fishery Product Technology Media, consider the following questions:

a) Is the article in your area of expertise? Only accept it if you think you can leave a high-quality review.

b) Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Share this with the editor when you respond.

c) Do you have time? The review process will take time. Before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadlines.

d) Respond to invitations as soon as possible (even if they are rejected) - delaying your decision slows down the review process and means more writers are waiting.

2- Manage Your Reviews

Confidential documents: If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can't share them with anyone without the permission of the previous editors. Because peer reviews are confidential, you also may not share information about reviews with anyone without the permission of the editors and authors.

How to enter and access your reviews: Your review will be managed through OJS. To access papers and submit your reviews. Log in using your username and password on OJS MTHP or click on the link in the invitation email you received which will take you to the submission / review system.

Journal specific instructions: When you sit down to write a review, make sure you familiarize yourself with journal guidelines (author guidelines).  

First read the article. You might consider examining the main problem by choosing which passage to read first.

Methodology: If the script you are reviewing reports on an experiment, check the methods section first. If you find an issue related to unhealthy methodology or discredited method. Please immediately write recomendation for the submitted article. Missing processes are known to have an effect on the reported areas of research. The conclusions drawn contradict the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript. For analytical papers, check out the sampling reports, which are mandated in the study to be time-dependent.

Research data and visualization: Once you are satisfied that the methodology is robust enough, examine any data in the form of numbers, tables or figures. A critical issue in research data, which is considered a major weakness can be related to insufficient data points, variations that are not statistically significant, and unclear data tables.

3. Compile your review

Your review will help the editor decide whether to publish the article or not. This will also help writers and allow them to improve their script. It is important to provide an overall opinion and general observations on the article. Your comments must be polite and constructive, and must not include comments of personal details including your name.

You are asked to provide insight into any deficiencies in the article being reviewed. You need to explain and support your judgment so that editors and writers can fully understand the reasons behind your comments. You must indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by data and evidence.

Your recommendation

When you make recommendations, it's a good idea to consider the categories the editor is likely to use to classify articles:

Accept as it is (without revision)

Major Revisions - (describe revisions as needed)

Minor Revisions - (describe revisions as needed)

Decline (explain your reasons in your report)

If you are recommending a revision, you must provide a clear and coherent explanation to the author why this is needed. Once you are ready to submit your review results, follow the instructions on the "Review Form"

Final decision: The editor finally decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all review results and can ask for other opinions or ask the author to submit a revised article before making a decision.

4. After your review

After you submit your review, you should not forget that, even after completing your review, you should treat the article and the files or linked data as confidential. This means that you may not share it or information about the review with anyone without the prior editor's permission. Finally, we take this opportunity to sincerely thank the journal, editors and authors for the time you took to provide your valuable input on the article.