REVIEW POLICY
1. Peer Review Model
Jurnal Teknisi is committed to maintaining the quality, validity, and objectivity of published scientific articles through a rigorous review system:
- Double-Blind Peer Review: The identities of both the author(s) and reviewer(s) are kept strictly confidential from each other to prevent any subjective bias during the evaluation process.
- Number of Reviewers: Each manuscript is independently evaluated by a minimum of 2 (two) expert reviewers specializing in Computer Science, Information Systems, Computer Engineering, or Software Engineering.
2. Review Process & Workflow
- Desk Evaluation: The editorial board inspects the manuscript's alignment with the journal's focus and scope, adherence to formatting guidelines (template compliance), and conducts a similarity check using anti-plagiarism software (maximum threshold according to journal guidelines).
- Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts passing the initial stage are distributed to expert reviewers.
- Review Timeframe: Reviewers are allocated an estimated 2 to 4 weeks to complete the evaluation process.
- Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the editorial board (Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor) issues a final decision: Accepted, Revisions Required (Minor/Major), or Rejected.
3. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers utilize a structured evaluation rubric focusing on the following primary indicators:
| Evaluation Component | Primary Indicators |
|---|---|
| Novelty & Originality | Clear scientific contribution, significance of the research topic to science and technology advancement, and absence of plagiarism. |
| Methodological Rigor | Appropriateness of the research design, computational methods, algorithms, or experimental approaches utilized to address the problem. |
| Analysis & Discussion | Depth of results analysis, data validity, and comprehensive comparison of findings with relevant prior literature or previous studies. |
| Conclusions & References | Consistency between findings and conclusions, along with the currency of references (emphasizing primary sources from reputable journals published within the last 5–10 years). |
4. Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities
In accordance with SINTA-accredited journal management standards, reviewers are expected to uphold the following ethical guidelines:
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review are privileged documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss with third parties, or use data from the manuscript for personal gain without explicit written authorization from the authors.
- Objectivity & Constructiveness: Evaluations must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate; feedback must be constructive to help improve the manuscript's quality.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline or return manuscripts to the editor if potential conflicts of interest arise (e.g., institutional ties, collaborative research projects, or personal relationships with the authors).
5. Review Decision Categories
- Accepted: The manuscript is ready for publication without requiring significant modifications.
- Revisions Required - Minor: The author is given the opportunity to improve grammar, formatting, or argument clarity without requiring complex re-evaluation.
- Revisions Required - Major: The manuscript requires substantive improvements to methodology, experimentation, or data analysis, and must undergo a mandatory re-review cycle by the original reviewer(s).
- Rejected: The manuscript contains fundamental methodological flaws, lacks scientific novelty, or fails to meet the quality standards of Jurnal Teknisi.
