The Peer Review Process is the procedure through which a journal evaluates the quality, relevance, and contribution of a manuscript before publication. Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Abmas Negeri (JAGRI) are reviewed by experts with relevant expertise in community service and engagement. The review process is intended to assist the editors in determining whether a manuscript is suitable for publication in JAGRI.
Key points of the Peer Review Process include:
- Manuscripts submitted to JAGRI are first screened by the editorial team.
- Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to peer reviewers with relevant expertise.
- Peer reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and provide recommendations to the journal editor regarding whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
- The editor considers the reviewers' comments and recommendations before making the final decision to accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript.
The Peer Review Process serves as an important quality-control mechanism in scholarly publishing. Peer reviewers evaluate the manuscript to help ensure the quality, relevance, methodological appropriateness, and contribution of the community service program. Peer reviewers do not have the authority to make the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript. The authority to make the final editorial decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board.
How Does the Peer Review Process Work?
When a manuscript is submitted to JAGRI, it is first evaluated to determine whether it meets the journal's basic submission requirements and falls within the journal's focus and scope of community service and engagement. If the manuscript meets these requirements, the editorial team selects potential peer reviewers with appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript and provide recommendations.
JAGRI uses a Double-Blind Peer Review system, in which the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout the review process.
Why Peer Review?
Peer review is an integral part of scholarly publishing that helps maintain the quality, credibility, and integrity of published manuscripts. In the context of community service publications, peer review also ensures that the reported activities are relevant to community needs, appropriately designed and implemented, adequately evaluated, and capable of demonstrating meaningful outcomes or contributions to the community.
Peer reviewers contribute their expertise and time to provide constructive feedback that can help authors improve the quality, clarity, and academic contribution of their manuscripts.
Peer Review Steps
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts to JAGRI through the journal's online submission system. Manuscripts should be submitted through the designated online system and should not be submitted directly via email unless otherwise instructed by the Editorial Office.
2. Editorial Team Screening
The editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript complies with JAGRI's author guidelines, manuscript template, formatting requirements, publication ethics, and other basic submission requirements.
At this stage, the editorial team also checks the manuscript's relevance to the scope of community service and engagement.
3. Editor-in-Chief Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor evaluates whether the manuscript is appropriate for JAGRI in terms of its focus, originality, relevance, potential contribution, and overall suitability.
Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient relevance to community service, or fail to meet essential publication requirements may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).
4. Peer Reviewer Invitation
The editor invites qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the field of the community service program, including expertise related to the topic, target community, intervention, methodology, or evaluation approach presented in the manuscript.
5. Response to the Invitation
Potential reviewers consider the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers may accept or decline the invitation. When declining, reviewers are encouraged, where possible, to recommend alternative qualified reviewers.
6. Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and provide constructive, objective, and detailed comments.
The review may consider, among other aspects:
- The clarity and relevance of the community problem or needs assessment.
- The objectives of the community service program.
- The appropriateness of the methods and implementation strategies.
- The involvement and participation of the community or partners.
- The adequacy of program evaluation.
- The clarity and validity of the reported outcomes and impacts.
- The contribution and potential sustainability of the program.
- The quality and relevance of the references.
- Compliance with applicable ethical and publication standards.
Reviewers then submit their reports to the journal together with a recommendation, such as Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
7. Editorial Evaluation of the Reviews
The editor evaluates all reviewer reports and comments before making an overall editorial decision.
If the reviewers provide substantially different or conflicting recommendations, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain further assessment before reaching a decision.
The editor is not bound by the recommendation of any individual reviewer and retains full responsibility for the final editorial decision.
8. Decision Communicated to the Authors
The editor communicates the editorial decision to the authors through the journal's online submission system or official editorial communication channel.
Where applicable, reviewer comments and recommendations are provided to the authors to guide the revision of their manuscript.
9. Further Steps
If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the subsequent editorial and production stages.
If the manuscript is rejected, the authors are informed of the decision and, where appropriate, provided with reviewer comments.
If revision is required, the authors are asked to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' and editor's comments and to resubmit the revised version within the specified timeframe.
For manuscripts requiring substantial revision, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. For manuscripts requiring only minor revisions, the revised version may be evaluated by the editor without further external review.
The number of review and revision rounds is determined by the editor based on the quality of the revised manuscript and the extent of revisions required.