PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Every submission to STORAGE: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik dan Ilmu Komputer goes through editorial screening and peer review, so that the published work is of good quality and is valid. The journal uses a double blind review: the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Experts in the subject assess the scientific merit and the originality of each manuscript, its relevance to engineering and computer science, and its fit with the focus and scope of the journal.

Workflow Overview

Stage	Summary	Typical time
1. Initial evaluation	The editors check the scope, the format, the originality, and the ethics of the manuscript.	Before the review
2. Assignment of reviewers	Reviewers are invited, and the manuscript is made anonymous.	Within 2 weeks
3. Review	The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend a decision.	Usually 2 weeks
4. Decision	The editors decide to accept, to ask for a revision, or to reject.	About 1 to 2 months from submission
5. Revision	The authors revise and resubmit, and the revision is checked.	2 weeks for a minor revision, 4 weeks for a major revision
6. Publication	Copyediting, formatting, and publication in an upcoming issue.	According to the issue schedule

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 dates of the issues are shown on the Publication Frequency page.

1Initial Evaluation

The editorial team first checks that the manuscript follows the article template. The Editor in Chief then assesses whether the manuscript is suitable for the journal, whether it is sufficiently original, and whether it is of interest to readers. A manuscript can be rejected at this stage without being sent for review. The initial evaluation covers four checks.

Check	What is examined
Scope and focus	The manuscript must fit the focus and scope of the journal and meet the conditions for publication.
Format	The manuscript must follow the citation style, the Author Guidelines, and the Manuscript Preparation instructions. A manuscript that does not comply is returned to the authors for reformatting.
Originality	The manuscript is screened for similarity under the Plagiarism Policy. A high similarity score leads to an examination by an editor and does not mean automatic rejection.
Ethics	Where the research involves human participants or personal data, the authors must confirm permission and consent and provide the statements that are required by Publication Ethics.

2Assignment of Reviewers

A manuscript that passes the initial evaluation is sent to at least two independent reviewers. The reviewers should be experts in the subject of the manuscript, and they should come from institutions that are different from the institution of the corresponding author. Each invited reviewer decides whether to accept the invitation on the basis of expertise, availability, and conflicts of interest, and a reviewer who declines may suggest another expert. The aim is to assign the reviewers within two weeks.

Researchers who wish to serve as reviewers can register their interest through the Call for Reviewer page. 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, their affiliations, the acknowledgements, and the statements of contribution from the manuscript. This information is kept in a separate title page file that is not sent to the reviewers. Personal metadata is also removed from the manuscript file. The funding statement and the competing interests statement are kept by the editors.

2.2 Conflicts of Interest

A reviewer or an editor who has a conflict of interest must decline the assignment or must not take part in the decision. A manuscript that is submitted by an editor or by a member of the editorial team is handled by an editor who is not involved in it, and the author does not take part in its evaluation, as described in the Conflicts of Interest policy.

3Review

The reviewers read the manuscript carefully, assess its scientific quality, originality, validity, and relevance, and give constructive comments to the authors. The review usually takes two weeks, and an extension is possible if it is agreed with the editorial office. Each reviewer recommends to accept, to revise, or to reject the manuscript. The reviewers recommend only, and the final decision is made by the editors. The criteria follow the structure of the article template.

Aspect	What the reviewers consider
Title and abstract	Whether they are accurate and whether the contribution is clear.
Introduction	The background, the state of the art, the research gap, the novelty, and the research problem or objective.
Research method	The research design, the data and materials, the tools or algorithms, the experimental or analytical procedure, replicability, validity and reliability, and, where applicable, permission and consent.
Results and discussion	The correctness and clarity of the results, the link to earlier studies and theory, and the implications for engineering practice or computing.
Conclusion	Whether the conclusion is supported by the results and answers the research problem.
References	Accuracy, currency, the required style, and the coverage of relevant work.
Ethics and integrity	Plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed use of generative AI, and any other concern.

Confidentiality: reviewers must keep the manuscript confidential and must not upload it to generative AI tools. They may use such tools only to improve the language of their own report, as stated in the Generative AI Policies.

4Decision

The Editor in Chief, together with the Editorial Board, 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 substantially, the editors may invite an additional reviewer before they decide.

Decision	Meaning	Deadline for authors
Accept	The manuscript goes to copyediting and publication.	Not applicable
Minor revision	The manuscript can be accepted after small changes.	2 weeks
Major revision	The manuscript needs substantial changes and must be revised and resubmitted.	4 weeks
Reject	The manuscript is not accepted for STORAGE.	Not applicable

The decision and the anonymous comments of the reviewers are sent to the authors through the online system. Fees never influence a decision. The charges of the journal are shown on the Author Fees page.

5Revision Process

When the authors resubmit a manuscript, they must include two files:

1. The revised manuscript, with the changes highlighted.
2. A rebuttal letter that responds to each comment, or that explains why a comment was not followed.

A manuscript with a major revision normally returns to the same reviewers for a second round. After a minor revision, a further review is optional, and the editor alone may check the changes. Authors who need more time must ask for it before the deadline.

6Complaints and Appeals

Authors who disagree with a decision may appeal by sending an email to the editorial office at jurnal.storage@gmail.com with the subject line Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier]. The appeal must give clear reasons and evidence and must respond to specific points of the decision, because disagreement alone is not sufficient.

An editor who was not involved in the manuscript reviews the appeal and may ask for an additional opinion. The decision on the appeal is final, and each manuscript can be appealed only once.

Concerns about misconduct are handled under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

7Publication

After a manuscript is accepted, the authors submit the final version, which is copyedited and formatted before publication. Changes after publication follow the Correction and Retraction policy, and scholarly comments follow the Post-Publication Discussion procedure.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The editors and the reviewers of STORAGE are committed to the following principles.

Principle	Commitment
Confidentiality	Information about the manuscript and the review is kept confidential.
Objectivity and impartiality	Reviews are based on merit and are free from bias and conflicts of interest.
Timeliness	Reviews are completed promptly, and the authors are kept informed.
Transparency and accountability	Comments are reasoned, and editorial decisions are fair.
Conflicts of interest	Editors and reviewers declare conflicts of interest, and the conflicts are managed.
Plagiarism and misconduct	Editors and reviewers watch for plagiarism and misconduct and report them under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.
Recognition of reviewers	The contribution of the reviewers is acknowledged.