Article Review Process

Jurnal Ilmiah dan Riset Akademik applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process, in which both the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review. The journal follows the best practice guidelines established by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Step-by-Step Review Workflow

1. Submission & Initial Check. The editorial office reviews each submitted manuscript for completeness, compliance with the journal's aims and scope, required ethical statements, and plagiarism (via Turnitin). A manuscript failing this check is returned to the author with an explanation before being assigned to an editor.
2. Editorial Assessment (Desk Review / Triage). The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor evaluates the manuscript's originality, significance, and methodological soundness. Manuscripts that fall outside the scope or are found to be of insufficient quality or ethically problematic may be desk-rejected with a clear rationale. Editors must declare any conflicts of interest and withdraw if applicable.
3. Reviewer Selection. The handling editor invites at least two qualified reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest. Suggested reviewers provided by authors may be considered but will be independently verified. The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other (double-blind).
4. External Peer Review. Reviewers submit a structured evaluation covering: originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity of writing, and overall contribution to the field. They also provide a recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject, along with detailed comments for the authors and confidential notes for the editor.
5. Editorial Decision. The handling editor synthesizes the reviewer reports and issues a decision. In cases of conflicting reports or borderline results, a third review may be requested before a final decision is made.
6. Revision. Authors are provided with reviewer comments and must submit a point-by-point response letter and a revised manuscript with tracked changes. The revised version may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers. Most manuscripts undergo at least one revision cycle.
7. Final Decision & Notification. The final editorial decision is approved by the Editor-in-Chief and communicated to the authors (and, where appropriate, to the reviewers) with reasons and anonymized excerpts from the review reports.
8. Post-Acceptance. Accepted manuscripts undergo editorial quality control (language and reference checking), copyediting and typesetting, author proofreading, DOI assignment, and online publication.
9. Integrity, Ethics, and Appeals. The journal follows COPE best practices for confidentiality, peer review, and handling complaints or allegations of misconduct. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an independently delegated editor. All editorial actions and their dates are recorded for audit purposes.

Review Timeline

Note: The journal uses a double-blind review system. Authors must ensure that no identifying information (names, affiliations, funding sources) appears in the manuscript body during the review stage. All editorial correspondence is conducted via the OJS platform.