DOWNLOAD ARTIKEL TAMPLATE
Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
Jurnal Dehasen Untuk Negeri
DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW
Jurnal Dehasen Untuk Negeri (JDUN) applies a double-blind peer-review process. Author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another during review. Manuscripts are evaluated for their relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, methodological adequacy, ethical integrity, clarity, and contribution to community service and empowerment.
Review Model
Double-Blind
Author and reviewer identities are concealed
Initial Assessment
Editorial Screening
Scope, submission requirements, and integrity
Final Decision
Editorial Decision
Informed by reviewer reports and author revisions
Review Stages
- Initial Editorial Screening
The editors assess whether the manuscript fits the journal’s aims and scope and complies with the author guidelines. Screening includes manuscript completeness, relevance, basic scholarly quality, and potential ethical concerns. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned for correction or declined before external review. - Originality and Similarity Assessment
Manuscripts are screened using Turnitin to identify potentially overlapping text. Editors examine the similarity report in context, including the adequacy of citations, quotations, and any overlap with previously published work. A similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism. - Reviewer Selection and Double-Blind Review
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject. Reviewers assess the manuscript’s scholarly quality, methods, analysis, outcomes, and contribution, and provide constructive comments and recommendations to the editors. Authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript and file metadata to support anonymous review. - Editorial Assessment
The editors consider the reviewer reports and assess whether the manuscript meets the journal’s publication standards. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision; responsibility for the final acceptance or rejection rests with the editors. Additional review may be requested when clarification is needed. - Author Revision and Reassessment
When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the editorial and reviewer comments. Authors should explain any recommendations they have not followed. Depending on the extent of the changes, the revised manuscript may be assessed by the editors or returned to reviewers. - Final Decision and Production
Authors are notified of the editorial decision through the journal’s submission system. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, and proofreading before publication. Acceptance does not eliminate the need for editorial or production corrections.
Originality and Publication Integrity
Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are prohibited. Authors must acknowledge the work of others through appropriate citations and quotations and disclose relevant overlap with their own previously disseminated or published work. Duplicate publication and undisclosed substantial reuse of previously published material are not acceptable.
Turnitin supports editorial assessment but does not replace scholarly judgment. Potential concerns are assessed according to their nature and extent, and authors may be asked to provide explanations or corrections before an editorial decision is made.
Editorial Decision Categories
The editors determine the appropriate decision after considering the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, and any author revisions.
| Decision | Meaning and Next Steps |
|---|---|
| Reject / Decline | The manuscript is not accepted for publication, and the current submission is closed. A revised version should not be resubmitted as a continuation of that submission unless the editors explicitly invite resubmission. Authors may consider another suitable journal. |
| Resubmit for Review | Substantial revision is required before the manuscript can be reconsidered. The revised manuscript undergoes another round of review. An invitation to resubmit does not guarantee acceptance. |
| Revisions Required Minor or Major Revisions |
The manuscript requires specified improvements. Authors must submit the revised manuscript and a response to the comments. The editors assess whether the revisions are satisfactory and may seek further reviewer input. Final acceptance remains subject to this assessment. |
| Accept | The manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly requirements and is accepted for publication. It proceeds to copyediting, layout, and proofreading. Authors may still be asked to address editorial queries and correct the publication proofs. |
Reviewer Independence and Confidentiality
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, maintain confidentiality, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and provide constructive scholarly feedback. Editorial decisions should be based on the manuscript’s merit and integrity, independently of author fees, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships.
