Peer Review Process

Overview of the Peer-Review Process:

The submitted manuscript will be evaluated by reviewers appointed by the editorial board. Submitted manuscripts will be first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, in this case, the editorial-in-chief, for suitability of language and suitability to the scope of the journal as well as writing procedures according to the author's guidelines. If the manuscript is suitable for review by a reviewer, the manuscript will be sent to the reviewer, but if the manuscript does not meet the initial criteria, the manuscript will be returned to the editor.

The reviewer will carry out a review using a blind review process method where the reviewer will not know the name of the author on the manuscript. Assessment criteria include originality, significance and accuracy in writing. The Editorial Board has the authority to accept or reject the submitted manuscript, as well as ask the author to resend the submitted manuscript. Plagiarism filtering of texts submitted to this journal is carried out with the help of the TURNITIN application. The more plagiarism, the article will be immediately rejected (if more than 20% do not include a bibliography).

Specific Review Peer Review Process: Reviewers will be asked to provide detailed and constructive comments where these comments will be the basis for the editor's consideration in rejecting or accepting the article that has been submitted. Some things that need attention from reviewers are as follows,

1. Originality and significance: Reviewers are asked to discuss the originality of the findings presented in an article. Additionally, reviewers should see whether the findings may significantly influence the scientific community. If the reviewer finds work that is the same as the article being reviewed, the reviewer can provide suggestions or criticism to improve the way the research results are presented.
2. Novelty of the theoretical approach and way of discussing the problem: Reviewers are asked to discuss the novelty of the theoretical approach and the way the author discusses research results to solve the problem. This element of novelty is usually seen in the introduction as an introduction to the urgency of the research that has been carried out.
3. Strengths and weaknesses of the method used: Reviewers are expected to be able to assess the method used. Statistical analysis or other analytical methods that influence the interpretation of results should be criticized in order to improve the quality of the reviewed article.
4. Reliability of the appearance of research results and conclusions: Reviewers are expected to be able to assess the reliability of research results and conclusions obtained. This reliability can be assessed through the completeness of the analysis and data that has been obtained.
5. Alignment of layout with guidelines: Alignment with guidelines will make it easier for editors to carry out the editing and layout process. Many writers often ignore this and only format their writing incompletely and perfectly according to the guidelines provided. Reviewers can assess this but the main focus is on the content and some previous points.
6. Suggestions and input: If several errors or shortcomings are found in an article, the reviewer is expected to be able to clearly indicate which parts need to be corrected and what needs to be done to improve the quality of the article.

*If the manuscript is accepted without revisions, the Editor-in-Chief will provide a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to the author and the article will immediately be processed for copy-editing and production.