Peer Reviewer Process

Every manuscript submitted to Jurnal Teknologi dan Informatika undergoes a scholarly peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic merit of each article before publication. The journal employs a blind peer review method, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the evaluation process.

Before being assigned to reviewers, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening conducted by an editor or a designated member of the editorial board. This screening assesses the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, compliance with the author guidelines, completeness, and preliminary compliance with publication ethics and manuscript similarity requirements.

Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are subsequently assigned to at least two reviewers with relevant expertise and competence in the subject area of the article. Reviewers may include national and international academics and practitioners specializing in information technology, informatics, intelligent systems, models and architectures, IT management, and other related fields.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several key criteria, including:

  • Originality and novelty of the research;

  • Contribution to the advancement of science and technology;

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  • Appropriateness of the research methodology;

  • Validity and quality of the data and research findings;

  • Quality of the analysis and discussion;

  • Clarity of the article's presentation;

  • Consistency between the conclusions and the research findings; and

  • Quality and relevance of the references used.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

In general, the article review process consists of the following stages:

1. Manuscript Submission

The editor receives manuscripts submitted through the journal's online system.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editor assesses the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, compliance with the required format, completeness, and adherence to publication ethics.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are assigned to at least two reviewers with expertise relevant to the research topic.

4. Blind Peer Review

Reviewers examine the manuscript, provide comments, and make recommendations without knowing the authors' identities. Reviewer identities are also kept confidential from the authors.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide editorial recommendations, which may include:

  • Accept – the article is suitable for publication.

  • Minor Revision – the article requires minor revisions.

  • Major Revision – the article requires substantial revisions.

  • Reject – the article is not suitable for publication.

6. Communication of Review Results

The editor communicates the review results and reviewers' comments to the authors through the journal's online system.

7. Manuscript Revision

Authors revise their manuscripts in response to the reviewers' comments and resubmit the revised versions within the specified deadline.

8. Evaluation and Final Decision

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation, if necessary. The editor then makes the final decision based on the review results, the quality of the revisions, and editorial considerations.

9. Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo final editing and preparation for publication in the appropriate journal issue.

Peer Review Timeline

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two reviewers through the blind peer review process. The duration of the review process may vary depending on the complexity of the article, reviewer availability, and the extent of revisions required.

The editor aims to communicate the review results to the authors within approximately 10–15 days from the date the manuscript is deemed to have met the requirements for entering the peer review stage. This timeframe may vary if additional reviewers must be appointed, existing reviewers must be replaced, or further revisions are required.

The final decision to accept or reject an article rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board, taking into account the reviewers' assessments and the journal's scholarly standards.