Jurnal Abmas Negeri (JAGRI)

Peer Review Policy

Jurnal Abmas Negeri (JAGRI) is committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly quality, integrity, and relevance in the publication of community service and engagement articles. JAGRI applies a rigorous, fair, and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This mechanism is intended to promote objective evaluation and minimize potential editorial or personal bias.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Board, conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editors. The screening evaluates:

  • Alignment of the manuscript with JAGRI's focus and scope in community service and engagement.
  • Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and publication ethics.
  • Originality and relevance of the community service program.
  • Clarity of the problem or needs identified among the target community or partners.
  • Appropriateness of the manuscript structure, language, and presentation.
  • Similarity or plagiarism level of the submitted manuscript.

Manuscripts that do not meet fundamental requirements, are outside the journal's scope, have an unacceptable similarity level, or contain substantial deficiencies in language or manuscript structure may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned a unique Manuscript ID and proceed to the peer review stage.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

JAGRI employs a double-blind peer review system in which:

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
  • The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

This system is implemented to promote impartial evaluation and protect the integrity of the editorial process.

3. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is generally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in community service, community development, health, nursing, education, social sciences, technology, or other disciplines relevant to the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Expertise relevant to the topic and community service program.
  • Academic and professional competence in the relevant field.
  • Relevant scholarly publication experience.
  • Previous peer-review experience, where applicable.
  • Absence of actual or potential conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or partners involved in the manuscript.

If reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the Editor may appoint an additional reviewer to obtain a balanced assessment before making the final editorial decision.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects:

A. Community Problem and Needs

  • Clarity of the problems or needs experienced by the target community or partner.
  • Relevance and significance of the identified problem.
  • Adequacy of supporting data or evidence describing the community's needs.
  • Suitability of the selected community or partner for the proposed intervention.

B. Program Design and Implementation

  • Appropriateness of the methods and strategies used in the community service program.
  • Clarity of the implementation stages and activities.
  • Suitability of the intervention to the characteristics and needs of the community.
  • Adequacy of participant or partner involvement.
  • Feasibility and replicability of the program.

C. Results and Impact

  • Clarity and completeness of the reported results.
  • Evidence of changes in knowledge, skills, behavior, capacity, productivity, health status, or other relevant outcomes.
  • Appropriateness of instruments or indicators used to evaluate the program.
  • Consistency between the reported results and the objectives of the program.
  • Evidence supporting the effectiveness or benefits of the intervention.

D. Discussion and Contribution

  • Adequacy of the discussion in explaining the results.
  • Relevance of the results to previous literature or established practices.
  • Clarity of the contribution of the community service program.
  • Potential for program sustainability, development, or replication in other communities.

E. Ethics and Publication Integrity

  • Compliance with applicable ethical principles for community service activities.
  • Appropriate documentation of informed consent or other ethical requirements when activities involve human participants or personal data.
  • Appropriate acknowledgment of partners, institutions, funding sources, and other contributors.
  • Absence of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or other forms of research or publication misconduct.

F. Manuscript Quality

  • Logical organization and coherence of the manuscript.
  • Clarity and accuracy of language.
  • Quality and relevance of references.
  • Adequacy and currency of the cited literature.
  • Quality of tables, figures, photographs, and other supporting materials.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, professional, and evidence-based evaluations that help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

Reviewers must:

  1. Complete the review within the specified timeframe.
  2. Provide clear recommendations (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject) supported by specific and constructive comments.
  3. Evaluate the manuscript objectively and independently.
  4. Immediately disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest.
  5. Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and its contents.
  6. Not use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal, academic, or professional advantage.
  7. Identify relevant publications that may strengthen the manuscript, where appropriate.
  8. Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or other forms of publication misconduct to the Editor.
  9. Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory language, or comments unrelated to the scientific and community service quality of the manuscript.

6. Timeline and Communication

  • Initial Editorial Screening: generally completed within 1–2 weeks after submission.
  • Peer Review: reviewers are generally given 2–4 weeks to submit their review reports.
  • Author Revision: authors are generally expected to resubmit revisions within:
    • 2–4 weeks for Minor Revisions.
    • 4–8 weeks for Major Revisions.

The review timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds required.

All editorial decisions and revision requests are communicated to authors through the journal's online submission system or official editorial communication channels.

7. Editorial Decision-Making

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor.

Editorial decisions consider:

  • Recommendations and comments from peer reviewers.
  • Quality and relevance of the community service program.
  • Originality and contribution of the manuscript.
  • Methodological rigor and adequacy of program evaluation.
  • Compliance with ethical and publication standards.
  • Alignment with JAGRI's focus and scope.

Reviewer recommendations serve as important considerations but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

 

Reviewer Guidance

Peer reviewers play an important role in maintaining the quality, relevance, and integrity of community service publications in Jurnal Abmas Negeri (JAGRI). Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations in accordance with recognized publication ethics principles, including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Core Principles

1. Objectivity

Reviews must focus on the quality, relevance, methodology, implementation, outcomes, and contribution of the community service program. Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, derogatory remarks, and unprofessional language are not acceptable.

2. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline an assignment if they have financial, institutional, professional, personal, or other relationships that could influence their objectivity.

3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to JAGRI are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

4. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

To protect the confidentiality and intellectual property of authors, reviewers must not upload or submit unpublished manuscript content, data, figures, tables, or other confidential materials to generative AI platforms or other external AI systems for review or analysis.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the confidentiality and integrity of the review process.

Structure of Review Comments

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their review reports as follows:

A. Summary of the Program

Provide a brief summary of:

  • The community or partner involved.
  • The main problem or need addressed.
  • The objectives of the program.
  • The intervention or activities implemented.
  • The main outcomes and contribution of the program.

 

B. Problem Identification and Program Relevance

Assess whether:

  • The community problem is clearly identified.
  • The problem is supported by adequate evidence or needs assessment.
  • The proposed solution is relevant to the needs of the community or partner.
  • The objectives are specific and appropriate.

 

C. Methods and Implementation

Assess:

  • The appropriateness of the implementation method.
  • The clarity of the stages of activities.
  • Participant or partner involvement.
  • The suitability of the intervention to the target community.
  • The adequacy of instruments and procedures used to evaluate the program.

 

D. Results, Evaluation, and Impact

Assess whether:

  • Results are clearly presented.
  • Evaluation indicators are appropriate.
  • The reported outcomes are supported by adequate evidence.
  • Changes resulting from the program are clearly demonstrated.
  • Conclusions are consistent with the results.
  • Sustainability or follow-up of the program is adequately discussed.

 

E. Constructive Feedback

Provide specific and actionable recommendations that can help authors improve the manuscript. Comments should clearly distinguish between major issues that affect the validity or contribution of the manuscript and minor issues such as language, formatting, terminology, or presentation.

Review Quality and Process Improvement

Jurnal Abmas Negeri (JAGRI) regularly monitors the quality and timeliness of peer-review activities to maintain a fair, constructive, and efficient editorial process.

The Editorial Board welcomes constructive feedback from authors and reviewers to continuously improve the quality, fairness, transparency, and efficiency of the journal's peer-review process.

For questions regarding the peer-review process, reviewers may contact the Editorial Office at:

Email: jagri@salnesia.id

Reference

COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Editing peer reviews – English.
https://doi.org/10.24318/AoZQIusn