Peer-Review Process

Review Procedure

1. Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to evaluate the manuscript’s scope and compliance with the journal’s guidelines. The screening covers the manuscript's scope, originality and novelty, basic scientific structure, research ethics and academic integrity, language quality, methodology, significance and potential contribution, and data completeness and transparency. Similarity checking is also conducted as part of the initial assessment. Manuscripts that meet the basic requirements proceed to peer review. Further information is provided in the https://journal.ipb.ac.id/jikk/PlagiarismNotice.

2. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on relevant expertise, academic and research experience, and a publication record in the relevant field within the previous three years. Reviewers are also selected to ensure that their expertise is appropriate to the subject of the manuscript and that no conflict of interest exists.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript throughout the review process. Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest and decline the review if they cannot provide an objective evaluation. Reviewers’ duties are described in Section 3 of the https://journal.ipb.ac.id/jikk/ethicsinpublishing. Reviewers are prohibited from using artificial intelligence (AI) in the peer review process, including to analyze, evaluate, or draft review comments, or to enter or upload the manuscript or any part of it into an AI application. Further information is provided in the https://journal.ipb.ac.id/jikk/ai-policy.

4. Review Timeline

Reviewers are generally given one to two weeks to complete the review. The review period may be adjusted when necessary and agreed upon with the reviewer. Reviewers who are unable to complete the review within the agreed period are requested to inform the editorial team promptly.

5. Editorial Decision and Revision

The Editor in Chief makes the final decision regarding publication based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the overall editorial assessment. The decision may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission for further review, resubmission elsewhere, or rejection. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.