Peer Review Process
The review process is carried out to ensure that the articles that are entered and received are only articles that are in accordance with the journal's focus and are the best articles. This process is carried out objectively at the core of publishing journals that are good and carried out by all leading scientific journals. Our reviewers play an important role in maintaining content standards and focus for all texts. The articles that are entered are reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
The initial evaluation of the manuscript was carried out by the Editors, namely the First editor to evaluate all the manuscripts. Good and focused texts will be accepted, and those that are still not good will be returned for improvement. The text is rejected at this stage if it is less original (plagiarism) and is outside the focus and scope of the journal. Scientific articles that have bad grammar, writing procedures are not appropriate, and do not follow the template, the article is returned to be repaired. Those who meet the minimum criteria are usually forwarded to be examined by at least 2 reviewers.
Review of journals using a double-blind review process. Where peer reviews and writers don't know each other. So that reviewers do not see articles subjectively.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate: - What is the original text - Does the content match the focus and scope - Does it follow the code of ethics of article writing - Does it have clear results presented and supports conclusions, and; - Is using the correct reference.
The time needed for the review process depends on the response of the reviewer. If the results of the two reviewers are different, then it is sought to most closely approach the opinions of other experts. But, if there are no differences, both are used. If the input from one of the reviewers is sufficient to convince the editor, then the decision at this stage is to accept, reject or ask the author to revise the draft. Editorial decisions will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the reviewer, which contains the results of comments from reviewers about the contents of the text. the revised text is returned to the editor, which is then evaluated for the final decision.
In addition to commenting on the article script, the reviewer also gives advice to the editor, who is responsible for giving the final decision to accept or reject the article.