Reviewer Policy

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Every manuscript submitted to Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun (JIP) will be checked by the board of editor regarding scope, in house style, plagiarism. The manuscript that qualifies the focus and scope of JIP will be continued to the review process. The JIP adheres to a Double-Blind Peer-Review process that is rapid and fair and also ensures a high quality of articles published. The reviewer is a journal partner from the experts who concern about the field of this journal. The editor will send an e-mail to the chosen reviewer about the title and content of the manuscript, and also the invitation to log in to the journal website to finish the review process. The reviewer logs in to journal website to approve doing the review, to download the manuscript, to send their comment, and to choose the recommendation. The qualified paper will be published. In so doing, JIP needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn around time of about 4-5 weeks. The result will be returned to the author to be followed up. Maintaining JIP as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. This statement is based on COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.


Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Read more to get the information about Publication Procedure, Editorial WorkflowReviewer Process, Reviewer Ethics and Author Guidelines for this Journal.