Peer Review Policy & Process SITEKNIK Journal

Sistem Informasi, Teknik dan Teknologi Terapan
E-ISSN: 3032-3991 | P-ISSN: 3090-1626

1) Purpose & General Principles

  • Assuring scholarly quality through objective, independent, and well‑documented peer evaluation.
  • Fairness & confidentiality: the journal uses double‑blind peer review (authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed).
  • Transparency: the workflow, criteria, and indicative timelines are publicly described on the journal website.
  • Integrity: editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit only and are not influenced by any non‑scholarly or financial considerations.

2) Review Model

  • Type:double‑blind peer review.
  • Number of reviewers:at least two independent reviewers per manuscript.
  • Content exceptions: Editorials, editor’s notes, and announcements may be assessed editorially (without full peer review) and will be clearly labeled on the article.

3) Publication Schedule & Synchronised Timeline

SITEKNIK publishes four issues annually: January, April, July, and October. To ensure timely publication, peer review and revisions follow these cut‑offs:

  • January Issue

    • Submission cut‑off: 20 December (of the previous year)
    • Reviews & revisions completed by: 25 December
    • Production (copyediting, layout, proof): 01–27 December
    • Publication: 28 January

  • April Issue

    • Submission cut‑off: 20 March
    • Reviews & revisions completed by: 25 March
    • Production: 01–27 March
    • Publication: 28 April

  • July Issue

    • Submission cut‑off: 20 May
    • Reviews & revisions completed by: 25 June
    • Production: 01–27 June
    • Publication: 28 July

  • October Issue

    • Submission cut‑off: 20 September
    • Reviews & revisions completed by: 25 September
    • Production: 01–28 September
    • Publication: 28 October

Note: Submissions are accepted year‑round. Manuscripts that complete review and revisions after a cut‑off will be scheduled for the next issue.

4) Workflow Stages & Service Levels (SLA)

  1. Submission & Desk Review – ~7 days
    Scope fit, completeness, formatting compliance, and similarity (plagiarism) check. Manuscripts out of scope or breaching ethics may be rejected at this stage.

  2. Handling Editor Assignment – 3–5 days
    A handling editor is assigned to nominate and invite qualified, conflict‑free reviewers.

  3. Reviewer Confirmation – 7–10 days
    Reviewers accept/decline invitations; if declined, alternative reviewers are invited promptly.

  4. Round‑1 Review – ~4 weeks
    Reviewers provide constructive comments and a recommendation (accept / minor revision / major revision / reject).

  5. Initial Editorial Decision – ≤ 3 days
    The editor synthesizes the reviews and issues a decision with annotated feedback.

  6. Author Revision

    • Minor revision:≤ 14 days
    • Major revision:≤ 28 days
    • Authors submit the revised manuscript plus a point‑by‑point response to all comments.

  7. Revision Verification & (If Needed) Additional Round – 1–2 weeks
    The editor and/or reviewers verify the adequacy of revisions. A second round (typically ~2 weeks) may be conducted if needed.

  8. Final Decision – ≤ 3 days
    Accept (move to production) or Reject (with reasons). Resubmissions are considered if substantive changes are made.

  9. Production & Author Proof – ~2–3 weeks before the issue date
    Copyediting, layout, proof‑reading, author approval, and pagination. Published articles display dates of acceptance and publication.

  10. Indicative end‑to‑end duration: 2–12 weeks from submission to final decision, depending on the responsiveness of authors/reviewers and proximity to the issue cut‑off.

5) Roles & Responsibilities

  • Editors / Handling Editors
    Ensure a fair process, select competent reviewers, manage COIs, synthesize recommendations, and make the final decision.
  • Reviewers
    Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations; maintain confidentiality; declare conflicts of interest; and avoid using manuscript materials for personal advantage.
  • Authors
    Respond professionally, meet deadlines, and ensure the accuracy of data, citations, and supporting materials.

6) Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality & contribution to the field.
  • Methodology & validity of data and analysis.
  • Clarity of presentation (structure, language, figures/tables, citations).
  • Relevance to SITEKNIK’s scope and engagement with up‑to‑date literature.
  • Ethical compliance (e.g., approvals, privacy, data handling, accurate attribution).

7) Confidentiality & Data Protection

All manuscripts, supplementary files, and peer‑review communications are confidential. Files shared for review are scrubbed of identifying metadata (double‑blind hygiene). System access is role‑restricted.

8) Conflicts of Interest (COI)

  • Reviewers/Editors must decline assignments where COIs exist (financial, institutional, recent collaboration, personal, or direct competition).
  • Authors must disclose funding and any potential COIs at submission; relevant disclosures are published with the article.

9) Handling Ethical Breaches

Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, or citation manipulation is handled under SITEKNIK’s Publication Ethics policy. Actions may include requests for clarification, correction, rejection, or retraction (for post‑publication cases).

10) Data, Code & Supporting Materials

Authors are encouraged to provide data/code/materials sufficient for verification, subject to legal/ethical constraints. Reviewers may request clarifications or additional materials when warranted.

11) Submissions by Journal Editors/Reviewers

When a manuscript is authored by a journal editor/editorial board member/reviewer, it is handled by a different editor, and system access is restricted to safeguard independence and confidentiality.

12) Appeals

Authors may submit a written appeal within 14 days of the decision, providing evidence‑based arguments. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor/editorial board member not involved in the original decision. Appeal decisions are final.

13) Co‑Review & Reviewer Development

Co‑review with a colleague or trainee is allowed only with prior editor approval, with the contribution disclosed to the editorial office (while maintaining double‑blind conditions). The journal supports reviewer development through guidance and editorial feedback.