Publication Review Process

Authors submit their manuscripts to the journal, where the initial step involves a similarity check by Penerbit to identify potential plagiarism. Following this, the Chief Editor conducts an initial assessment to determine if the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope and requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are rejected, while those that do are assigned to a specific section editor based on their content. The manuscript then undergoes a double-blind peer review process, where two reviewers evaluate it using a detailed evaluation sheet. Here is the link to the manuscript reviewer form.

Review decisions may result in acceptance, conditional acceptance (requiring revisions), or rejection. For manuscripts with conditional acceptance, authors are provided with feedback and requested to make the necessary revisions. The revised manuscript is subsequently re-evaluated, and the final decision is communicated to the authors following the final review and formatting checks. Once a manuscript successfully completes the final format review, it is published, and authors are informed of its visibility.

In cases where reviewers’ decisions conflict, the editors may either send the manuscript to a third reviewer or return it to the original reviewers for further advice. This approach is particularly useful in situations of disagreement among reviewers. The editors will assess the strength of each reviewer’s arguments and consider any additional information not available to the reviewers. The editors’ primary responsibility is to serve the readers and the broader scientific community effectively.

The review process generally takes about 4-8 months. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, reputation, and specific recommendations. Our editorial processes strictly adhere to standard procedures, which are visualized in the following flowchart to provide a clear representation of the workflow (Figure 1).