Peer Review Process

The Jurnal Karya untuk Masyarakat (JKuM) applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other during the review process. This policy is implemented to maintain the objectivity, independence, and integrity of manuscript evaluation.

Each manuscript that passes the initial screening is reviewed by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise in community service, community engagement, community empowerment, applied science and technology, and other subject areas relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript based on key aspects, including its alignment with the journal's focus and scope, originality, relevance to community needs, quality of the literature review, appropriateness of the methods used in community service activities, quality of implementation and evaluation, analysis of results and community impact, clarity of presentation, and scholarly contribution to community service and community engagement.

Peer Review Stages

1. Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts comply with the journal's submission requirements and author guidelines.

2. Initial Screening

The editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal's focus and scope, follows the required format, contains the necessary components, and complies with publication ethics requirements. At this stage, the editor may also conduct plagiarism or other publication ethics checks.

3. Peer Review

Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are assigned to at least two reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and provide recommendations to the editor regarding its suitability for publication.

4. Revision

When revisions are required, authors are asked to revise their manuscripts based on the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers. Authors may be required to undertake more than one round of revision if the editor considers further improvement necessary.

5. Editorial Decision

The editor makes the final decision based on the review results and the quality of the revised manuscript. The possible decisions are:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication.

  • Minor Revision: Minor revisions are required.

  • Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required, and the manuscript may be sent back for further review.

  • Reject: The manuscript is not accepted for publication.

6. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts may undergo final copyediting, formatting checks, and production processes before being published online.

Confidentiality and Objectivity

The entire peer review process is conducted in a professional, objective, independent, and confidential manner. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Reviewers must not use, disclose, or otherwise exploit information obtained from the manuscript for personal or third-party purposes.

Reviewers are also expected to disclose any potential conflict of interest to the editor and decline the review assignment when circumstances may compromise the objectivity of their evaluation.

The editor has the authority to make the final publication decision based on the review results, the scholarly quality of the manuscript, the relevance and potential impact of the community service activities, and the journal's editorial policies.