Peer Review Process

1. Overview

Jurnal Pengabdian dan Inovasi is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer-review process to ensure the academic integrity, quality, and validity of all published works. The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for peer review and follows best practices in scholarly publishing.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a thorough evaluation by qualified experts in the relevant fields of community service, social innovation, participatory development, and applied sciences.

---

2. Review Type: Double-Blind Peer Review

Jurnal Pengabdian dan Inovasi employs a double-blind peer review system. This means:

• The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers throughout the review process.

• The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

This approach ensures objectivity, minimizes bias, and allows manuscripts to be evaluated solely on their scholarly merit and contribution to the field.

---

3. Peer Review Workflow

The peer review process follows the structured stages outlined below:

Stage 1: Initial Submission and Desk Review

• Upon submission, the manuscript is checked for completeness, adherence to the journal’s author guidelines, and scope alignment.

• The Editor-in-Chief performs an initial plagiarism check using anti-plagiarism software (e.g., Turnitin). Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding the acceptable threshold (typically >20%) are returned to the authors for revision or rejected outright.

• The editors assess whether the manuscript meets the minimum standards of quality, originality, and relevance to community service and innovation.

• Outcome: The manuscript is either (a) sent for peer review, (b) returned to the author for revision before review, or (c) rejected without further review (desk rejection).

Stage 2: Reviewer Assignment

• Manuscripts that pass the desk review are assigned to a Section Editor with relevant expertise.

• The Section Editor invites at least two (2) independent, external reviewers who are recognized experts in the subject area.

• Reviewers are selected based on their qualifications, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions.

Stage 3: Review Process

Reviewers are given a specified timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks) to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

Stage 4: Reviewer Recommendation

Upon completion of the review, each reviewer submits a detailed report and provides one of the following recommendations:

• Accept (no revisions): The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.

• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small corrections or clarifications before publication.

• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes to content, analysis, or structure. It will be sent for a second round of review.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and is not recommended for publication.

Stage 5: Editorial Decision

The Section Editor compiles the reviewers' comments and makes a preliminary recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision, taking into account:

• The reviewers' reports and recommendations.

• The manuscript's overall contribution to the journal's scope.

• Any responses from the authors (if a revision was submitted).

Possible final decisions are:

• Accept

• Accept with minor revisions

• Revise and resubmit (major revisions)

• Reject

Stage 6: Revision and Re-review (if applicable)

• Authors whose manuscripts are returned for revision must submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment.

• Revised manuscripts are typically returned to the original reviewers for a second evaluation (for major revisions) or assessed directly by the Section Editor (for minor revisions).

Stage 7: Final Acceptance and Publication

• Once the manuscript is approved, the author receives an official acceptance letter.

• The manuscript undergoes copyediting, layout formatting, and proofreading before being published online in the next available issue.

---

4. Timeline

Jurnal Pengabdian dan Inovasi strives to provide authors with timely decisions. The typical review timeline is as follows:

Note: Delays may occur depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required.

---

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

All reviewers are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards:

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all manuscript details strictly confidential and must not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.

• Objectivity: Reviews must be constructive, impartial, and based solely on the scholarly quality of the work.

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must immediately disclose any potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, or professional) and recuse themselves from the review if necessary.

• Timeliness: Reviewers must complete their reviews within the agreed timeframe or notify the editor promptly if they are unable to do so.

---

6. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal letter to the Editor-in-Chief, providing detailed justifications and rebuttals to the reviewers' comments. The editorial board will review the appeal, and a final decision will be communicated within 14 working days.

---

7. Acknowledgment

Jurnal Pengabdian dan Inovasi deeply appreciates the voluntary contributions of its reviewers. Their expertise, time, and constructive feedback are vital to ensuring the quality and integrity of the journal. At the end of each year, the journal publishes an acknowledgment list of all reviewers who have contributed during that volume.