REVIEW PROCESS

Review Process

Peer Review Process

Jompa Abdi: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat applies a rigorous peer-review process to maintain the quality, validity, originality, and academic integrity of published articles.

All research manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial assessment and, where appropriate, proceed to independent peer review. The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review system, in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

Manuscripts that proceed to peer review are generally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Submission and Administrative Check

The editorial office checks the completeness of the submitted manuscript, compliance with the journal's author guidelines and template, required declarations, basic publication requirements, and supporting information.

2. Initial Screening and Editorial Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, academic quality, methodological appropriateness, research integrity, and overall suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, have substantial deficiencies in academic quality, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or present significant ethical concerns may be rejected without external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation are generally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise. Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of their assessments.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review model. Reviewers receive an anonymized version of the manuscript, and their identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Authors are therefore expected to prepare their manuscripts so that their identities are not revealed in the anonymized manuscript file used during the review process.

5. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly and technical considerations, including originality, relevance, theoretical foundation, research design, methodology, data analysis, interpretation of results, quality of discussion, clarity of presentation, validity of conclusions, ethical considerations, and contributions to community service and related academic fields.

6. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' reports and the editor's own assessment, an editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted.

  • Revisions Required / Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor revisions.

  • Resubmit for Review / Major Revision: The manuscript requires major revisions and must be resubmitted for further evaluation.

  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected.

7. Author Revision

When revisions are requested, authors must carefully address the comments provided by reviewers and the editor. Authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

8. Re-Evaluation

A revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor or returned to the original reviewers or additional reviewers, particularly when substantial revisions have been requested. Further rounds of revision may be required before a final decision is reached.

9. Final Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the responsible editor based on the manuscript's academic quality, reviewer reports, revisions, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not, by themselves, constitute the final publication decision.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally requested to consider the following aspects:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  • Originality and significance of the research;

  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives;

  • Adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;

  • Reliability and adequacy of data analysis;

  • Quality of the results and their interpretation;

  • Depth and relevance of the discussion;

  • Consistency between the research objectives, results, and conclusions;

  • Contribution to the advancement of knowledge or professional practice;

  • Quality and relevance of scholarly references;

  • Research and publication ethics; and

  • Overall clarity and quality of academic presentation.

Review Timeline

The journal seeks to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining appropriate academic standards. Reviewers are generally requested to complete each review assignment within approximately four weeks.

The actual time required to reach an editorial decision may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds required, and the authors' responsiveness to reviewer comments.

Accordingly, the stated review period should be understood as a target rather than a guarantee of acceptance or publication within a specific period.

Reviewer Independence and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or interest that could reasonably affect their impartiality. Reviewers should decline an invitation if they have financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, personal, or other conflicts of interest that may compromise the independence of their assessment.

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and must not request unnecessary citations for the purpose of increasing citation counts for their own work, particular authors, journals, or institutions.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal, academic, commercial, or other purposes without appropriate authorization.

Reviewer reports and communications associated with the peer-review process are also treated as confidential editorial records.

Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Editors and Editorial Board members are permitted to submit manuscripts to Jompa Abdi: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat. However, they must not participate in the editorial evaluation, reviewer selection, peer-review process, or publication decision concerning their own manuscripts.

Such submissions must be handled by another qualified editor and processed independently in accordance with the journal's standard peer-review procedures to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

Editorial Independence

The final publication decision rests with the responsible editor. Decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal, research integrity, peer-review reports, and compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical policies.

Acceptance is never guaranteed solely on the basis of reviewer recommendations.