Peer Review Process

Overview

Jurnal Perkotaan is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, originality, and scholarly relevance of all articles published in the journal. Manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo editorial assessment and, where appropriate, independent external peer review before a publication decision is made.

Jurnal Perkotaan applies a double-anonymized (double-blind) peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. The editorial office has access to the identities of both parties solely for the proper administration of the editorial process.

As a general policy, manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Peer reviewers provide recommendations and scholarly advice to the Editor; however, the final editorial decision rests with the Editor or Editor-in-Chief and is not determined solely by reviewer recommendations.

All submission, review, revision, and editorial decision processes are managed through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

Stages of the Peer-Review Process

1. Submission and Administrative Check

Following submission through OJS, the editorial office performs an administrative examination to determine whether the manuscript complies with the journal's basic submission requirements.

The assessment may include:

  • completeness of the manuscript and required supplementary documents;
  • conformity with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript template;
  • completeness of author and affiliation information;
  • appropriate anonymization of the manuscript for double-anonymized review;
  • completeness and accuracy of references;
  • declarations concerning ethics approval, informed consent, funding, conflicts of interest, and data availability, where applicable;
  • compliance with relevant reporting standards;
  • appropriate file formats, tables, figures, and supplementary materials; and
  • completion of other documents required by Jurnal Perkotaan.

Submissions that do not meet the administrative requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial assessment.

2. Similarity and Publication-Ethics Screening

Submitted manuscripts are screened for originality and inappropriate textual overlap.

Authors are required to provide a similarity report showing an overall similarity index below 30%. The editorial office may conduct additional similarity screening when considered necessary.

A similarity percentage is used only as a screening indicator and is not, by itself, considered evidence of plagiarism. Editors assess the nature, source, distribution, and context of overlapping material. A manuscript with a similarity index below the specified threshold may still be rejected or investigated if inappropriate copying, unattributed reproduction, duplicate publication, text recycling, or other forms of publication misconduct are identified.

Likewise, legitimate similarities arising from references, standard methodological terminology, properly quoted material, institutional names, or other unavoidable expressions may be considered during editorial assessment.

Where concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, authorship, ethical approval, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of research or publication misconduct arise, the journal may suspend the review process while the matter is investigated in accordance with its publication-ethics policies.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

After administrative and similarity checks, the manuscript is evaluated by the Editor or a designated member of the Editorial Board.

The initial editorial assessment considers whether:

  • the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of Jurnal Perkotaan;
  • the research question or scholarly argument is sufficiently clear and relevant;
  • the manuscript demonstrates adequate originality and scholarly contribution;
  • the study design, methodology, analysis, or conceptual approach appears sufficiently rigorous to warrant external review;
  • conclusions are reasonably related to the evidence presented;
  • the manuscript complies with fundamental research and publication-ethics requirements; and
  • the quality of presentation is adequate for meaningful peer review.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection) when it is outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient scholarly quality or originality, contains fundamental methodological or ethical problems, does not meet essential submission requirements, or is otherwise unsuitable for publication in Jurnal Perkotaan.

Passing editorial screening does not imply eventual acceptance.

4. Selection and Invitation of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts considered suitable for external review are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject matter, methodology, or disciplinary context of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on considerations that may include:

  • demonstrated expertise relevant to the manuscript;
  • research and publication experience;
  • methodological or theoretical competence;
  • independence from the authors and the research;
  • absence of significant conflicts of interest; and
  • ability to provide a rigorous and timely assessment.

Reviewers should not accept an invitation when a financial, professional, personal, academic, institutional, or other relationship could reasonably compromise—or be perceived to compromise—their impartiality.

Reviewers are expected to disclose potential conflicts of interest to the Editor before accepting a review assignment. The Editor determines whether the disclosed relationship prevents the reviewer from participating.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers or identify individuals whom they believe should not review the manuscript, together with an appropriate reason. Such requests are considered by the Editor but are not binding, and responsibility for reviewer selection remains entirely with the journal.

Double-Anonymized Peer Review

Jurnal Perkotaan uses a double-anonymized peer-review model.

Under this model:

  • reviewers are not informed of the identities of the authors;
  • authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers;
  • reviewer identities are known only to authorized members of the editorial team;
  • reviewer comments provided to authors are normally anonymous; and
  • authors are responsible for removing identifying information from the anonymized manuscript and supplementary materials.

Authors should avoid unnecessarily revealing their identity through acknowledgements, file metadata, institutional descriptions, or self-references written in a manner that directly identifies the authors.

Although the journal makes reasonable efforts to preserve anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when the research has previously been publicly presented or disseminated.

Confidentiality of Peer Review

Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential scholarly communications.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss, reproduce, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript except as necessary for the editorial and peer-review process.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript or review materials with unauthorized persons;
  • contact the authors directly concerning the manuscript;
  • use unpublished ideas, methods, results, or data for personal or professional advantage;
  • disclose information concerning the manuscript or editorial decision; or
  • retain or distribute confidential manuscript files beyond what is necessary to complete the review.

If a reviewer wishes to involve another person, including a trainee or colleague, in preparing the review, prior permission must be obtained from the journal and the contributor must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

Criteria for Peer Review

Reviewers are requested to provide a fair, objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluation of the manuscript.

The following aspects are normally considered:

  1. Relevance and significance of the topic
    Whether the research addresses an important, timely, or relevant scholarly or societal issue within the scope of Jurnal Perkotaan.
  2. Originality and novelty
    Whether the manuscript provides new findings, perspectives, interpretations, methodologies, applications, or meaningful synthesis of existing knowledge.
  3. Scientific and scholarly merit
    Whether the study or scholarly argument is conceptually sound, appropriately designed, and sufficiently rigorous.
  4. Research question and objectives
    Whether the objectives, hypotheses, or research questions are clearly defined and appropriately addressed.
  5. Methodological rigor
    Whether the study design, participants or data sources, sampling, measurements, analytical methods, statistical procedures, qualitative methods, or other methodological approaches are appropriate and sufficiently described.
  6. Validity of results and interpretation
    Whether the results are presented accurately and whether interpretations and conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence.
  7. Contribution to knowledge and society
    Whether the manuscript provides a meaningful contribution to scholarship, policy, practice, communities, or broader societal understanding, as appropriate to the nature of the article.
  8. Research and publication ethics
    Whether appropriate ethical standards have been followed, including ethical approval and informed consent where required, protection of research participants, appropriate attribution, and disclosure of relevant conflicts of interest.
  9. Organization and coherence
    Whether the manuscript is logically structured, internally consistent, and presented in a systematic manner.
  10. Use of literature and references
    Whether relevant and appropriate literature has been considered; citations adequately support statements; important prior scholarship has not been overlooked; and references are used responsibly.
  11. Tables, figures, and supplementary materials
    Whether visual and supplementary materials are relevant, accurate, understandable, appropriately presented, and consistent with the main text.
  12. Language and presentation
    Whether the manuscript is written clearly enough for its scientific or scholarly content to be evaluated and communicated effectively.
  13. Adherence to relevant reporting standards
    Where applicable, reviewers may consider compliance with recognized reporting guidelines appropriate to the research design.
  14. Overall suitability for Jurnal Perkotaan
    Whether the manuscript meets the journal's expected level of scientific, scholarly, ethical, and editorial quality.

Reviewers should focus on improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript and should avoid personal, discriminatory, hostile, or otherwise inappropriate comments.

Reviewer Reports

Reviewers may provide their assessment directly through the OJS review form and, where appropriate, through annotated manuscript files.

A reviewer report should normally identify:

  • major strengths of the manuscript;
  • major scientific or scholarly concerns;
  • methodological or analytical concerns;
  • issues affecting interpretation of the findings;
  • ethical or publication-integrity concerns;
  • specific recommendations for improvement; and
  • minor issues involving clarity, presentation, tables, figures, citations, or language.

Reviewers may also submit confidential comments to the Editor that are not transmitted to the authors.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions required to support the validity of the work and optional suggestions that may improve the manuscript.

Requests for additional experiments, data, analyses, citations, or substantial changes should have a clear scholarly justification and should be proportionate to the objectives and scope of the submitted work.

Editorial Decisions

After considering the reviewer reports, the Editor assesses the manuscript and makes one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is considered suitable for publication, subject only to final editorial and production requirements.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially acceptable but requires limited corrections or clarification that do not substantially alter the principal methodology, analysis, or conclusions.

Major Revision

Substantial issues must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered further. A major-revision decision does not constitute a guarantee of eventual acceptance.

Reject

The manuscript is considered unsuitable for publication because of substantial concerns regarding scope, originality, methodology, validity, interpretation, ethics, scholarly contribution, or other fundamental issues.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor has final responsibility for the editorial decision and may reach a decision different from a reviewer's recommendation when justified by the evidence, journal policy, scope, publication ethics, or the overall assessment of the manuscript.

Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may occasionally provide substantially different assessments of the same manuscript.

When reviewer recommendations conflict, the Editor does not determine the decision by simply counting recommendations. Instead, the Editor evaluates the reasoning, evidence, expertise, and significance of the concerns raised by each reviewer.

The Editor may:

  • independently adjudicate the differing recommendations;
  • request clarification from one or more reviewers;
  • invite an additional independent reviewer; or
  • consult another Editor with relevant expertise.

The final decision is based on the scientific and scholarly merits of the manuscript rather than the numerical balance of reviewer recommendations.

Revision and Re-review

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

  1. a revised manuscript;
  2. a detailed point-by-point response addressing every reviewer and editor comment; and
  3. a clear indication of changes made to the manuscript.

Where authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they are encouraged to provide a respectful and evidence-based explanation rather than making a requested change that they consider scientifically or academically inappropriate.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, evaluated by the Editor, or sent to additional reviewers depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

More than one round of revision may be required.

Failure to submit a revision within the period specified in the decision letter without contacting the editorial office may result in closure of the submission. A later submission may then be treated as a new manuscript at the discretion of the Editor.

Review Timeline

Jurnal Perkotaan aims to conduct peer review as efficiently as possible without compromising the quality and integrity of the evaluation.

For manuscripts that enter external peer review, the journal normally targets completion of the first round of peer review and an initial post-review editorial decision within approximately two to four weeks.

Review times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, disciplinary specialization, requests for additional review, ethical or methodological concerns, and the number of revision rounds required.

The total period from initial submission to final acceptance may therefore be longer than two to four weeks.