Peer Review Process
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Process
This page describes how manuscripts submitted to Jurnal INOVATOR are screened, reviewed, decided on, and prepared for publication. It also sets out the standards that reviewers and editors follow.
2–3 reviewers per manuscript Blind peer review e-ISSN 2615-5052
01Review Process Policy
On this page
Review model Workflow Timeline Evaluation criteria Recommendations Independence Confidentiality Conflict of interest Decision authority Reviewer disagreement
Review Model
Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by two to three reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The editor conducts the review using one of two models:
Double-blind review
Neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities.
Single-blind review
The reviewers know the authors' identities, but the reviewers' identities are kept confidential.
So that either model can be used, authors submit an anonymised manuscript file, as described in the Author Guidelines. Reviews are conducted through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS). Reviewers are drawn from the journal's reviewer list and, where necessary, from other experts in the field. Editors are responsible for style and format, and authors are responsible for the content of their articles.
Review Workflow
1Initial editorial screening
The editor checks that the manuscript is relevant to the journal's Focus and Scope, has original content, and has potential to contribute to the field. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are rejected at this stage.
2Scope and technical check
The editor checks the format against the article template and the submission checklist, and checks originality under the Plagiarism Check policy. Manuscripts with correctable problems are returned to the authors before review.
3Reviewer invitation
The editor appoints two to three reviewers with expertise in the manuscript's subject. A reviewer who has a conflict of interest, or who finds the manuscript outside their competence, declines. The editor then invites another reviewer.
4Scientific evaluation
Reviewers assess the manuscript against the evaluation criteria. They submit a report with comments for the authors and one of four recommendations.
5Revision
If revisions are needed, the authors revise the manuscript, explain point by point how each comment was addressed, and upload it to OJS. The editor may send the revised manuscript back to the reviewers or conduct the final evaluation personally.
6Editorial decision
Based on the reviewers' reports, the editor makes the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript and sends the reviewers' feedback to the authors.
7Copyediting and production
Accepted manuscripts are copyedited and laid out in the journal format, and author information is restored. The authors check the proof and correct factual or typographical errors only.
Timeline
| Reviewer assessment | By the deadline stated in the editor's review request |
|---|---|
| Author revision | Within the time given in the editor's decision letter |
| Publication | In the next available June or December issue after acceptance |
The total time from submission to decision depends on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds.
Evaluation Criteria
| Criterion | Question for the reviewer |
|---|---|
| Relevance | Does the topic align with the journal's scope? |
| Research quality | Are the methodology, analysis, and interpretation of results adequate, and are the data, calculations, tests, or simulations technically sound? |
| Originality | Does the work add new knowledge or innovation? |
| Clarity and structure | Is the paper clearly organised, and does it meet scientific writing standards? |
| References | Are the references relevant and sufficient? |
Reviewer Recommendations
Accepted
Can be accepted without revision.
Minor Revision
Requires minor revision.
Major Revision
Requires substantial revision.
Rejected
Does not meet the journal's standards.
Reviewer Independence
- Reviewers give an objective, evidence-based assessment and support their views with reasons.
- Where possible, reviewers are not from the same institution or research group as the authors.
- Reviewers do not ask authors to cite the reviewer's own work unless it is genuinely relevant.
Confidentiality
- Manuscripts and reviews are confidential. Reviewers protect the authors' privacy and do not disseminate their corrections, suggestions, or recommendations.
- Reviewers do not use unpublished data, designs, or findings from the manuscript, and do not upload it to external services, including generative AI tools.
Conflict of Interest
- Reviewers do not review papers in which they are directly or indirectly involved, such as through collaboration, supervision, a personal relationship, or a competing interest.
- A reviewer who recognises the authors in a double-blind review informs the editor.
- Manuscripts written by editors or editorial board members are handled by another editor.
Decision Authority
Reviewers advise; the editor decides. The editor makes the final decision to accept or reject, based on the scholarly merit of the manuscript, the reviewers' reports, and the authors' responses. The authors' identity, institution, or nationality does not affect the decision. Nor does any fee listed on the Author Fees page, which is charged only after acceptance.
Reviewer Disagreement
When reviewers' recommendations conflict, the editor does not simply count recommendations. Instead, the editor:
- weighs the reasons each reviewer gives and checks the points of disagreement against the manuscript;
- may invite an additional reviewer, within the journal's two-to-three-reviewer practice, or consult a member of the editorial board;
- explains in the decision letter how the conflicting comments were weighed and which issues the authors must address.
