Peer Review Process

Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (JPPM) implements a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all published articles. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to maintain objectivity, fairness, and impartiality in the evaluation.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on their scholarly merit, including originality, interdisciplinary contribution, methodological rigor, clarity of analysis, practical relevance, and contribution to sustainable social, economic, and cultural development.

Review Stages

1. Initial Submission and Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to ensure that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s focus and scope, adheres to the author guidelines, and meets basic academic and ethical standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without external review (desk rejection).

2. Plagiarism Check

All manuscripts are screened using Turnitin plagiarism detection software. Submissions with a similarity index exceeding 20% or showing indications of academic misconduct will be rejected or returned to the authors for correction.

3. Assignment to Handling Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a Section Editor or Handling Editor with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area, including interdisciplinary and applied research domains.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The review process is conducted anonymously to ensure impartiality.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and novelty of the work
  • Integration of research and/or community engagement (service-learning)
  • Theoretical and/or practical contribution
  • Methodological rigor and validity
  • Clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript
  • Relevance to sustainable development and community impact

5. Reviewers’ Recommendations

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revisions required
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

6. Editorial Decision

The Editor makes a decision based on reviewers’ reports. In cases of conflicting recommendations, an additional reviewer may be invited. The Editor’s decision is final.

7. Revision Process

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with reviewers’ comments. A revised manuscript must be accompanied by a detailed response to reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed.

8. Final Decision

The revised manuscript is evaluated by the Editor and, if necessary, returned to the reviewers for further assessment before a final decision is made.

9. Copyediting and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting to enhance clarity, readability, and consistency, followed by proofreading to ensure accuracy in grammar, formatting, and references.

10. Publication

The final version of the manuscript is published online as part of the journal issue under an open access system, ensuring broad dissemination and accessibility.

Review Timeline (Estimated)

  • Initial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer review process: 4–8 weeks
  • Revision process: 2–4 weeks
  • Final decision and publication: 2–4 weeks

Review Integrity

JPPM is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics and transparency. All reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and timely feedback. Any form of bias, conflict of interest, or unethical behavior will not be tolerated.