PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Every manuscript submitted to Jurnal Sains dan Teknologi is screened by the editors and evaluated through peer review, so that only valid work of good quality is published. The journal uses a double blind review model: the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Experts in the field assess the scientific merit and the originality of the manuscript, its relevance to science and technology, and its fit with the scope of the journal.

Peer Review Process

The table below shows the six stages of the process from submission to publication, with the usual time of each stage.

No.	Stage	What Happens	Typical Time
1	Initial evaluation	The editors check the scope, the format, the originality, and the ethics of the manuscript.	Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers
2	Assignment of reviewers	Independent reviewers are invited, and the manuscript is anonymized.	Within 2 weeks
3	Review	The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend a decision.	Usually 2 weeks
4	Decision	The Editor in Chief decides to accept the manuscript, to request a revision, or to reject it.	On average 2 to 3 months from submission to the first decision
5	Revision	The authors revise the manuscript, and the revision is checked.	2 weeks for a minor revision, 4 weeks for a major revision
6	Publication	The final version is copyedited, formatted, and published.	On average 3 to 6 months from acceptance

These times are estimates and not guarantees. They depend on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of review rounds. The planned months of publication are shown on the Publication Frequency page.

1. Initial Evaluation

The editors first check every submission in four respects before it is sent to reviewers.

Check	What the Editors Verify
Scope and focus	Whether the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and meets the conditions for publication.
Format	Whether the format and the citation style follow the Author Guidelines and the Manuscript Preparation page. A manuscript that does not comply is returned to the authors for reformatting and resubmission.
Originality	The manuscript is screened for similarity, as described in the Plagiarism Policy.
Ethics	For research that involves human participants or animals, the editors check the ethical approval, the consent, and the statements that are required. See Publication Ethics.

Please note: A similarity score is a screening signal and not proof of plagiarism. A high score leads to a review by the editor and not to an automatic rejection. Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are sent to reviewers.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

The assigned editor invites at least two independent expert reviewers who have relevant research experience. The reviewers should come from institutions other than that of the corresponding author. A reviewer accepts or declines the invitation on the basis of expertise, availability, and possible conflicts of interest. The target is to assign the reviewers within two weeks. Researchers who wish to serve as reviewers can register through the Call for Reviewer form, and the current reviewers are listed on the Reviewer Board page.

2.1 Anonymity

Before the review, the editorial office removes the names of the authors, the affiliations, the acknowledgments, and the statements of author contributions from the manuscript. This information is kept in a separate title page file, which is not sent to the reviewers. The statements on funding and on competing interests, which are usually written in the acknowledgments, are kept by the editors. Personal information in the properties of the file is also removed.

2.2 Conflicts of Interest

A reviewer or an editor who has a conflict of interest must decline the assignment or abstain from the decision, as explained in the Conflicts of Interest policy. A manuscript that is submitted by an editor or by a member of the editorial board is handled by an editor who is not involved in the work, and the author takes no part in its evaluation or in the decision.

3. Review

The reviewers assess the scientific quality, the originality, the validity, and the relevance of the manuscript. The standard review period is two weeks, and an extension is possible only when it has been agreed with the editorial office. The reviewers give constructive feedback and recommend that the manuscript be accepted, revised, or rejected. The questions that guide the reviewers are listed below.

Part of the Manuscript	Questions for the Reviewer
Title and abstract	Does the title describe the study accurately? Do the abstract and the keywords make the contribution clear?
Introduction	Are the background, the state of the art, the knowledge gap, and the novelty presented? Is a research question or an objective stated?
Research Method	Are the design, the materials or participants, the instruments, the procedures, and the analysis suitable, and are they described well enough for the study to be repeated? Are the data valid and reliable? Are the required ethical approvals described?
Results and Discussion	Are the results correct and clear? Are they linked to earlier research and to theory? What are the implications for science and technology?
Conclusion	Is the conclusion supported by the results, and does it answer the research question?
References	Are the references accurate and current, are they written in the required style, and are the relevant earlier studies cited?
Ethics and integrity	Are there signs of plagiarism, of fabricated or manipulated data, of undisclosed use of generative AI, or any other concern?

Reviewers must keep the manuscripts confidential, and they must not upload a manuscript to a generative AI tool. Such a tool may be used only to improve the language of the reviewer's own report, as explained in the Generative AI Policies.

4. Decision

The Editor in Chief makes the final decision on the basis of the comments of the reviewers and the conditions for publication. If the comments of the reviewers differ significantly, the assigned editor may invite an additional reviewer before a decision is made. The decision and the anonymous comments of the reviewers are sent to the authors through the online system. Fees never affect the decision. The decision rests on the quality and the relevance of the manuscript, as stated in Publication Ethics, and the charges are listed on the Author Fees page.

Decision	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript goes to copyediting and publication.
Minor revision	Small changes are required. The authors have 2 weeks to revise the manuscript.
Major revision	Substantial changes are required. The authors have 4 weeks to revise the manuscript.
Reject	The manuscript is not accepted for publication in INSOLOGI.

5. Revision Process

A manuscript that is accepted with revisions must be resubmitted by the authors. The standard deadlines are two weeks for a minor revision and four weeks for a major revision. A resubmission must contain two files: the revised manuscript, in which the changes are highlighted, and a rebuttal letter, in which the authors answer each comment of the reviewers or explain why a comment was not followed. A manuscript with a major revision normally returns to the same reviewers for a second round, while a further review after a minor revision is optional. Authors who need more time must ask for it before the deadline.

6. Complaints and Appeals

Authors who believe that a decision resulted from a mistake or from an unfair review may send an email to the editorial office at jurnal.insologi@gmail.com, with the subject line "Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier]". The letter must give clear reasons and evidence, and it must address the specific points of the decision, because disagreement alone is not sufficient. An editor who was not involved in the original decision reviews the appeal and may seek an additional opinion. The decision on the appeal is final, and a manuscript can be appealed only once. Concerns about misconduct follow the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

7. Publication

After a manuscript is accepted, the authors submit the final version, which is then copyedited and formatted for publication. Changes after publication follow the Correction and Retraction policy, and scholarly comments on a published article follow the procedure of the Post Publication Discussion.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Peer Review

INSOLOGI is committed to high standards of publication ethics and to the prevention of malpractice in peer review. The full duties of the editors and the reviewers are described on the Publication Ethics page. The main commitments are summarized below.

Commitment	What It Means
Confidentiality	The manuscripts and the information about their review are kept confidential by the editors, the reviewers, and everyone else who is involved.
Objectivity and impartiality	Reviews are based on merit, are free from bias and conflicts of interest, and are constructive.
Timeliness	Reviews are completed within a reasonable time, and the authors are informed promptly of the progress of their manuscripts.
Transparency and accountability	Reviewers give clear and reasoned comments, and the editors make their decisions fairly.
Conflicts of interest	Editors and reviewers declare their conflicts of interest, and the journal takes steps to keep the evaluation unbiased.
Plagiarism and misconduct	Suspected cases are watched for and are reported promptly, in accordance with the Allegations of Misconduct policy.
Recognition of reviewers	The journal acknowledges the work of its reviewers and gives them credit for it.