Peer Review Process

A manuscript submitted is evaluated through Initial Review by Editorial Editor in Chief/Managing Editor. If the article matches the journal requirements in terms of the scope, originality, novelty sufficiency of experimental data, and format, at least 2 (two) peer reviewers are assigned to review the manuscript with the Double-Blind Peer Review Process. After the review process is finished, the assigned editor makes the decision for the article. If the article needs revision, the manuscript is returned to the authors to revise. After that, the Editor in Chief makes the final decision (accepted or rejected). In each manuscript reviewed, peer reviewers will be rated based on the substantial and technical aspects.

The details of the process are:

  1. Manuscript Submission via system (by author).
  2. Manuscript Check and Selection (Editorial Editor in Chief/Managing Editor). 
  3. Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review. Prior to further processing steps, plagiarism check using CrossCheck/iThenticate is applied for each manuscript.
  4. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by expert reviewers).
  5. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on reviewers comments).
  6. Paper Revision (by author)
  7. Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestion (by author) via system
  8. If the reviewer seems to be satisfied with revision, notification for acceptance (by editor in chief). 
  9. Galley proof and publishing process.

The steps point number 1 to 5 are considered as 1 round of the peer-reviewing process. The editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

  1. Accepted, as it is. The journal will publish the paper in its original form.
  2. Accepted by Minor Revisions, the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections (let authors revised with stipulated time).
  3. Accepted by Major Revisions, the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors (let authors revised with stipulated time).
  4. Re-submit (conditional rejection), the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes.
  5. Rejected (outright rejection), the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.

Authors could recommend potential reviewers on menu “Comments for the Editor” in Open Journal System. Journal editors will check to make sure there are no conflicts of interest before contacting those reviewers and will not consider those with competing interests. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest. The editorial team will respect these requests as long as this does not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission. Assignment of the peer review is based on the expertise and experiences in research and publication relevant to the field of the manuscript to be reviewed. The number of citations and an h-index value of peer reviewers is parameter examples for consideration in assigning as a reviewer.