Peer Review Process

Jurnal Hilirisasi IPTEKS (JHI) employs a double-blind peer-review system to ensure the integrity, objectivity, and quality of each published article. The peer-review process is designed to maintain high academic standards while providing constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts.

1. Initial Submission and Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is first screened by the Editorial Office to verify its compliance with the journal’s aims and scope, formatting guidelines, and ethical standards. The manuscript is checked for plagiarism using Turnitin, and submissions with similarity above the acceptable threshold (20%) are rejected immediately. Manuscripts passing this stage are then assigned to a Section Editor for further evaluation.

2. Preliminary Editorial Evaluation

The assigned Section Editor reviews the manuscript for its scientific merit, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s focus. Manuscripts that meet these initial quality criteria are sent to qualified reviewers for a double-blind peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the basic standards may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research experience, and publication record. Both the reviewers’ and authors’ identities remain anonymous throughout the process to ensure fairness and eliminate potential bias.

4. Review Process

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript’s:

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge,

  • Methodological soundness and data accuracy,

  • Clarity of presentation and logical organization,

  • Theoretical or practical significance, and

  • Relevance to the scope of JHI.

Each reviewer provides detailed written comments and one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision,

  • Accept with minor revision,

  • Major revision required, or

  • Reject.

5. Editorial Decision and Author Notification

After receiving both review reports, the Section Editor synthesizes the feedback and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision. The editorial decision—acceptance, revision, or rejection—is communicated to the corresponding author, along with detailed reviewer comments.

6. Revision Process

If revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised version of their manuscript along with a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment. The revised manuscript may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers to confirm that all concerns have been adequately addressed.

7. Final Decision and Acceptance

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final determination based on the reviewers’ feedback and the authors’ revisions. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, and layout before publication.

8. Copyediting and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts undergo professional language editing, formatting, and quality control to ensure consistency and readability. Authors are given the opportunity to review and approve the final proofs before publication.

9. Publication and Post-Publication

Once finalized, the article is published in the upcoming issue according to the journal’s quarterly schedule (March, June, September, and December). The journal includes submission, revision, and acceptance dates on each article for full transparency.

10. Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections

JHI encourages post-publication dialogue. Readers may submit comments or letters to the editor regarding published works. If ethical or factual errors are identified, the journal follows COPE guidelines to issue corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern as appropriate.