Editorial Workflow

Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun

 
The following is the Editorial Workflow that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process.
 
The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online Manuscript Tracking System. The evaluation procedures are under constant review and the JIP editor works closely with the members of the review committees and the Council of Scientists to ensure that all applications are assessed fairly and thoroughly. One editor will usually take each article through from start to finish. The JIP team of research editors aims to read all of newly submitted research articles within three days. If your article is potentially suitable for The JIP that editor will ask a senior colleague to approve it, and, if that succeeds, he or she will send your article to two external peer reviewers. Usually the final result of the paper review is sent to the authors within 3-4 weeks working days. If revision is necessary, the author is asked to re-submit the dated revised manuscript incorporating the suggestions and recommendations of the referees within two weeks from the date of notice.
 
Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, the manuscript is checked by the journal’s editorial office to ensure that it is suitable to go through the normal peer review process. Once this is done, the manuscript is sent to an appropriate Editor based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. All manuscripts shall be handled by an Editor who is not from the same institute as any of the manuscript’s authors, is not from the same country as any of the manuscript’s authors, and has not co-authored any papers with any of the manuscript’s authors in the past three years.
 
If the Editor finds that the manuscript may not be of sufficient quality to go through the normal peer review process, or that the subject of the manuscript may not be appropriate for the journal’s scope, the manuscript shall be rejected with no further processing.
 
If the Editor finds that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, they should assign the manuscript to a number of external reviewers, provided that no conflict of interests exists between these reviewers and the manuscript’s authors. The reviewers will then submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:
1. Accept to Publish (Publish Unaltered)
2. Accept with Consider after Minor Changes
3. Accept with Consider after Major Changes
4. Rejected: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently.
 
When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:
1. Accept to Publish (Publish Unaltered)
2. Accept with Consider after Minor Changes
3. Accept with Consider after Major Changes
4. Rejected
 
If the Editor recommends “Accept to Publish (Publish Unaltered)”, the manuscript will undergo a final check by the journal’s editorial office in order to ensure that the manuscript and its review process adhere to the journal’s guidelines and policies. Once this is done, the authors will be notified of the manuscript’s acceptance, and the manuscript will appear in the Articles in Press section of the journal’s website.
 
If the Editor recommends “Accept with Consider after Minor Changes”, the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.
 
If the Editor recommends “Accept with Consider after Major Changes”, the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor can then make an editorial recommendation which can be “Accept to Publish (Publish Unaltered)”, “Accept with Consider after Minor Changes” or “Rejected”.
 
If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if the majority of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate.
 
The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal.
 
The peer-review process is Double Blind Review. Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous. Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias, for example based on an author's country of origin or previous controversial work. Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation. Reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter or self-citation.
 
Every journal published by JIP has an acknowledgment page for the researchers who have performed the peer-review process for one or more of the journal manuscripts in the past year. Without the significant contributions made by these researchers, the publication of the journal would not be possible.