PEER REVIEW PROCESS

 

Journal of Indonesian Society Empowerment (JISE) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to all submitted manuscripts. Under this policy, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept strictly anonymous to prevent bias and ensure an objective, high-quality evaluation. Below is the step-by-step workflow governing the peer review process.

1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts online through the JISE OJS portal. All submissions must fully comply with JISE's author guidelines, formatting standards, and scope requirements before entering the evaluation workflow.
2. Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, the Editor performs a desk evaluation to verify scope alignment, adherence to template guidelines, and initial similarity index limits. Manuscripts falling outside the journal scope or failing preliminary criteria may be rejected desk-side or returned to authors for technical correction.
3. Assignment to Peer Reviewers
Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert peer reviewers selected from JISE’s reviewer panel. Anonymity is strictly preserved on both sides to maintain a double-blind peer review standard.
4. Reviewers' Evaluation Criteria
Each reviewer evaluates the manuscript systematically based on the following scholarly parameters:
  • Coherence and Harmony: Logical alignment among title, abstract, introduction, empirical findings, discussion, and conclusions.
  • Novelty and Scientific Contribution: Originality of the research topic and its distinct contribution to community empowerment and sustainable development.
  • Methodological Rigor: Soundness of research design, data collection instruments, analytical procedures, and validity.
  • Quality and Relevance of References: Depth, recency, and appropriateness of cited scientific literature.
5. Editorial Decision Categories
Based on reviewer reports, the Handling Editor renders one of the following decisions:
  • Accept Submission: Accepted for publication as submitted or with minor technical polish.
  • Required Revisions: Accepted subject to minor or moderate revisions based on reviewer recommendations.
  • Resubmit for Review: Requires substantial revisions and structural changes, followed by a second round of peer review.
  • Reject Submission: Rejected due to severe methodological flaws, lack of novelty, or unmitigated ethical issues.
6. Communication with Authors
The Handling Editor formally transmits the editorial decision alongside anonymized reviewer feedback to the corresponding author, detailing specific instructions for revision where applicable.
7. Revisions and Resubmission
Authors revise the manuscript addressing point-by-point reviewer comments and submit a revised draft along with a detailed Response to Reviewers Matrix. Re-evaluations are conducted by the Editor or original reviewers to ensure feedback compliance.
8. Final Acceptance Decision
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the revised submission and reviewer verifications to issue the final formal acceptance for publication.
9. Copyediting and Publication Scheduling
Accepted papers enter copyediting, layout formatting, DOI registration, and final author proofreading. The Editor-in-Chief determines final issue scheduling, balancing receipt timelines and geographical representation.
Timeline and Review Duration
  • Overall Peer Review Duration: The standard peer review process typically requires 4 to 8 weeks, depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer turnaround times.
  • Reviewer Deadline: Assigned reviewers are granted 14 working days to complete their evaluations. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, an alternate qualified expert is appointed promptly by the Editorial Board to avoid workflow delays.