Kebijakan Proses Peninjauan

Review Process Policy

Jurnal Teknik Informatika STMIK DCI is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, originality, and scientific contribution of all articles published in the journal. The journal implements a systematic peer-review process to ensure that submitted manuscripts meet appropriate academic and scientific standards in informatics and information technology.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening, followed by an evaluation by qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area. The review process is conducted objectively, independently, confidentially, and in accordance with established principles of research integrity and publication ethics.

Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor, taking into consideration the reviewers' recommendations, scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and compliance with publication ethics.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess:

Relevance to the aims and scope of Jurnal Teknik Informatika STMIK DCI.
Compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript formatting requirements.
Completeness of the submission documents and required information.
Clarity of the manuscript structure and quality of scientific writing.
Originality, novelty, and potential contribution to informatics and information technology.
Appropriateness of the research objectives, methodology, and presentation of findings.
Compliance with research ethics and publication ethics standards.

The editor may reject a manuscript at this stage (desk rejection) if it falls outside the journal's scope, fails to meet the basic submission requirements, contains fundamental methodological deficiencies, or does not meet the minimum scientific and editorial standards for further evaluation.

2. Similarity Screening and Originality Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening may undergo a similarity check using plagiarism detection or text-matching software available to the journal.

The purpose of this screening is to identify potential plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, duplicate publication, and other concerns regarding manuscript originality.

Similarity scores are not used as the sole or automatic basis for editorial decisions. Editors evaluate the nature, source, context, and extent of textual similarities before determining whether further investigation or editorial action is necessary.

Manuscripts containing substantial evidence of plagiarism, redundant publication, or serious violations of publication ethics may be rejected in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

3. Reviewer Selection and Appointment

Manuscripts that meet the initial editorial requirements are assigned to qualified reviewers selected based on:

Expertise relevant to the manuscript's research topic.
Academic qualifications and professional experience.
Research and publication records in informatics or related disciplines.
Familiarity with the relevant research methods, technologies, or analytical approaches.
Absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise the impartiality of the review.
Ability to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.

Reviewers may be selected from institutions different from those of the authors to support the independence and impartiality of the evaluation process.

The editor is responsible for appointing appropriate reviewers and ensuring that the review process follows the journal's editorial and ethical standards.

4. Peer Review Model

Jurnal Teknik Informatika STMIK DCI adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review model.

Under this model, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, while the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the peer-review process.

This approach is intended to minimize potential bias and promote fairness, independence, and objectivity in manuscript evaluation.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on their scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, technical validity, relevance, and scholarly contribution.

Evaluations must not be influenced by an author's identity, institutional affiliation, academic position, nationality, gender, or other characteristics unrelated to the scientific merit of the research.

Authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript file where required by the journal's submission guidelines.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess submitted manuscripts using criteria appropriate to the research topic and methodology, including:

Originality and novelty of the research.
Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal.
Clarity of the research problem, objectives, questions, and hypotheses, where applicable.
Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology.
Suitability of the technologies, algorithms, models, tools, or frameworks employed.
Accuracy and reliability of data collection, processing, and analysis.
Validity of system design, implementation, testing, and evaluation, where applicable.
Consistency between research objectives, results, discussion, and conclusions.
Adequacy and relevance of references to current scientific literature.
Quality and clarity of scientific writing, tables, figures, diagrams, and other supporting materials.
Compliance with research ethics, data protection, and publication ethics requirements, where applicable.
Significance and contribution to informatics, information technology, and related fields.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed, constructive, and evidence-based comments to help authors improve the scientific quality and presentation of their manuscripts.

6. Reviewers' Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial changes.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications before further editorial consideration.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions, additional analysis, improvements to the methodology, or further explanation of the findings.
Reject Submission: The manuscript is not suitable for publication because of significant scientific, methodological, technical, ethical, or editorial deficiencies.

Reviewers' recommendations are important considerations in the editorial decision-making process but do not automatically determine the final outcome.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.

7. Manuscript Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors receive the reviewers' comments and editorial recommendations through the journal's OJS platform.

Authors are expected to:

Carefully consider the comments and recommendations provided by reviewers and editors.
Revise the manuscript in accordance with the comments received.
Submit the revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editor.
Provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.
Provide a clear scientific or technical justification when a recommendation cannot be implemented.

Authors who require additional time may contact the handling editor to request an extension before the revision deadline.

The editor may return the revised manuscript to the original reviewers or appoint additional reviewers when further evaluation is necessary.

8. Editorial Decision-Making

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor based on a comprehensive assessment of:

The results of the initial editorial screening.
Similarity screening and originality assessment.
Reviewers' evaluations, comments, and recommendations.
The scientific validity and methodological quality of the manuscript.
The quality and completeness of the revisions.
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Compliance with research integrity and publication ethics requirements.

Possible decisions include acceptance, a request for minor or major revision, or rejection.

All decisions must be based on scientific merit, editorial standards, and the journal's publication policies.

9. Disagreements Between Reviewers

When reviewers provide conflicting or substantially different evaluations, the editor may take appropriate steps to support a fair and well-informed decision, including:

Inviting an additional independent reviewer.
Requesting clarification from the reviewers.
Conducting an independent editorial assessment.
Considering the scientific evidence, methodological rigor, and relevance of the reviewers' comments.

The editor considers the substance of the evaluations rather than relying solely on the number of positive or negative recommendations.

The final decision remains the responsibility of the editorial team.

10. Confidentiality of the Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality during and after the review process. They must not:

Share or distribute manuscripts to unauthorized individuals without editorial permission.
Use unpublished information, code, data, algorithms, or research findings for personal or professional advantage.
Disclose confidential information about the manuscript, authors, or editorial discussions.
Reproduce or use unpublished research materials without appropriate authorization.
Discuss the manuscript with third parties without the editor's approval.

Confidentiality obligations remain in effect regardless of the final editorial decision.

11. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may affect their independence or objectivity.

Conflicts may arise from financial, professional, academic, personal, or institutional relationships involving the authors, their affiliated institutions, or the research being evaluated.

Reviewers who identify a relevant conflict must inform the handling editor before accepting or continuing the review assignment.

Where a conflict may compromise the fairness or integrity of the evaluation, the reviewer may be required to withdraw and be replaced by another qualified reviewer.

The editorial board is responsible for managing conflicts of interest in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.

12. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, independently, and constructively.
Provide clear, specific, evidence-based, and actionable comments.
Focus criticism on the scientific and technical content rather than on the authors personally.
Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and editorial communications.
Identify relevant published literature that may have been overlooked, where appropriate.
Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, or other ethical concerns to the editor.
Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
Inform the editor promptly if they lack the expertise or time needed to complete the review.
Disclose conflicts of interest that may influence their assessment.
Uphold professional and ethical standards throughout the review process.

Reviewers must not use unpublished materials to obtain personal, academic, or professional advantages.

13. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical compliance of their submitted manuscripts.

Authors must:

Submit original scholarly work that has not been published previously or submitted simultaneously to another journal, unless an exception has been explicitly permitted and disclosed.
Present research methods, data, software, algorithms, experimental results, and interpretations accurately and transparently.
Disclose funding sources and potential conflicts of interest.
Obtain ethical approval, consent, or relevant permissions when required, particularly for research involving human participants, personal data, or restricted datasets.
Respond professionally and adequately to reviewers' comments and editorial requests.
Revise manuscripts honestly and in accordance with scientific standards.
Ensure that all listed authors meet the journal's authorship criteria and have approved the submitted manuscript.
Provide appropriate citations for data, software, algorithms, datasets, and other resources used in the research.
Promptly inform the editor of significant errors or ethical concerns identified after submission.

Authors are expected to cooperate with editors and reviewers to ensure a fair and transparent evaluation process.

14. Peer Review Timeline

Jurnal Teknik Informatika STMIK DCI strives to conduct editorial screening and peer review efficiently while maintaining appropriate standards of scientific rigor and evaluation quality.

The duration of the review process may vary depending on:

The availability and responsiveness of qualified reviewers.
The complexity and scope of the research.
The need for additional reviews or technical assessments.
The extent of revisions required.
The timeliness of authors' responses.

The journal aims to communicate editorial decisions and revision requests within a reasonable timeframe. However, the duration of the review process is not guaranteed and may vary between manuscripts.

15. Editorial Integrity and Independence

Jurnal Teknik Informatika STMIK DCI is committed to editorial independence, impartiality, transparency, and ethical integrity throughout the evaluation and publication process.

Editors and reviewers must not discriminate against authors based on personal identity, institutional affiliation, academic position, nationality, gender, or other factors unrelated to scientific merit.

Editorial decisions are based on:

Scientific quality and methodological rigor.
Originality and research significance.
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Accuracy and reliability of research findings.
Contribution to informatics and information technology.
Compliance with ethical standards and publication policies.

Editors and reviewers are expected to uphold academic freedom, fairness, confidentiality, and responsible scholarly communication.

16. Peer Review Workflow

The peer-review process generally follows these stages:

Manuscript Submission → Initial Editorial Screening → Similarity Check → Reviewer Selection → Double-Blind Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Manuscript Revision (if required) → Re-review (if required) → Final Editorial Decision → Copyediting and Production → Publication

Workflow Description

Stage 1: Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's OJS platform in accordance with the Author Guidelines.

Stage 2: Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team assesses the manuscript's scope, completeness, formatting, scientific quality, and ethical compliance.

Stage 3: Similarity Check

The manuscript may be screened using similarity detection software to identify potential plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, or duplicate publication.

Stage 4: Reviewer Selection

The editor appoints qualified reviewers with relevant expertise and no disqualifying conflicts of interest.

Stage 5: Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript's originality, methodology, technical validity, scientific quality, and contribution to the field.

Stage 6: Editorial Decision

The editor considers the reviewers' recommendations and determines whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

Stage 7: Manuscript Revision

Authors revise the manuscript and submit a structured response to the reviewers' comments when revisions are requested.

Stage 8: Re-review

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated again by the original reviewers or additional reviewers, where necessary.

Stage 9: Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor makes the final decision based on scientific merit, reviewer feedback, and the adequacy of revisions.

Stage 10: Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, formatting, and other required production procedures.

Stage 11: Publication

After completing the editorial and production processes, the article is published according to the journal's publication schedule and open access policy.

The editorial board may adjust specific stages when necessary, depending on the characteristics and requirements of individual manuscripts.

17. Final Statement

Through an objective, independent, confidential, and ethically responsible peer-review process, Jurnal Teknik Informatika STMIK DCI seeks to ensure that published articles meet appropriate academic and scientific standards.

The journal is committed to promoting fairness, transparency, research quality, and responsible editorial decision-making to support the advancement of informatics, information technology, and related disciplines.