PEER REVIEW POLICY & PROCESS

PEER REVIEW POLICY & PROCESS
 
Independent, Double-Blind, Ethical, and Constructive Scholarly Evaluation
SITEKNIK: Sistem Informasi, Teknik dan Teknologi Terapan
E-ISSN 3032-3991 | P-ISSN 3090-1626
1. Purpose and General Principles

SITEKNIK applies peer review to maintain the scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, ethical integrity, and reliability of research published by the journal. Peer review is conducted independently and confidentially, and editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit rather than financial, institutional, personal, or other non-scholarly considerations.

2. Peer Review Model

SITEKNIK applies a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of the authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors, as far as technically and reasonably possible throughout the review process.

Each research manuscript that passes initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant scholarly or professional expertise.

Reviewers provide recommendations to support editorial assessment. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the final decision is made by the authorized editor.

3. Content Subject to Peer Review

Original research articles and other scholarly research manuscripts published by SITEKNIK are subject to external peer review before acceptance.

Non-research content such as editorials, editor's notes, announcements, corrections, retraction notices, or other journal information may be evaluated editorially without external peer review. Where an item is not peer reviewed, its content type should be clearly identifiable to readers.

4. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

Submissions are accepted year-round through the SITEKNIK online submission system.

Before external peer review, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to assess the manuscript's relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope, completeness of submission files, compliance with basic author requirements, scholarly presentation, similarity screening, and potential research or publication ethics concerns.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, seriously deficient in scholarly quality, or affected by significant ethical concerns may be declined during initial editorial screening without external peer review.

5. Submission Files and Supporting Materials

A standard SITEKNIK submission must include at least the manuscript file in Microsoft Word format and the Turnitin and/or iThenticate similarity report in PDF format within the same submission record.

Authors may also provide datasets, supporting data, research instruments, source code, technical documentation, ethical approval documents, multimedia, or other relevant supplementary materials. Where such materials are necessary to assess a substantive research claim, they may be considered as part of the peer-review process.

6. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their subject expertise, scholarly or professional competence, independence, availability, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

The handling editor is responsible for inviting appropriate reviewers and ensuring that the review process remains independent and fair.

Reviewer selection must not be influenced by author fees, institutional prestige, nationality, personal relationships, or other irrelevant considerations.

7. Peer Review Workflow
Stage 1 — Submission
The author submits the manuscript and required supporting files through the online journal system.
Stage 2 — Initial Editorial Screening
The editorial team evaluates scope, basic quality, completeness, formatting, similarity screening, and relevant ethical considerations.
Stage 3 — Reviewer Assignment
At least two qualified and independent reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts that pass initial screening.
Stage 4 — Double-Blind Peer Review
Reviewers assess originality, methodology, results, discussion, references, ethical integrity, presentation, and overall scholarly contribution.
Stage 5 — Editorial Decision
The editor considers the reviewer reports and determines the appropriate editorial decision.
Stage 6 — Author Revision
Where revision is requested, authors submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response to reviewer and editor comments.
Stage 7 — Revision Assessment
The editor and, where necessary, the reviewers assess whether substantive concerns have been addressed adequately.
Stage 8 — Final Editorial Decision
The authorized editor makes the final decision based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, ethical considerations, and the overall scholarly record.
Stage 9 — Production
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, proofreading, author proofing, and publication preparation.
8. Indicative Review Timeline

The initial external peer-review stage is generally expected to take approximately four weeks after suitable reviewers have accepted the review assignment. Actual review duration may be shorter or longer depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds required, and the responsiveness of authors and reviewers.

SITEKNIK does not guarantee a fixed decision date, acceptance date, or publication date. Authors will be informed through the journal system when additional time, clarification, or revision is required.

Manuscripts that successfully complete peer review, revision, final assessment, and production will be scheduled for the next available appropriate issue.

9. Publication Schedule
SITEKNIK publishes four regular issues each year in January, April, July, and October. Manuscripts may be submitted throughout the year. Acceptance does not guarantee publication in a specific issue, and article scheduling depends on completion of the editorial and production processes and the availability of space in the publication schedule.
10. Editorial Decisions
Editorial decisions may include:
Accept — the manuscript is considered suitable for publication.
Minor Revision — limited revisions are required before further editorial assessment.
Major Revision — substantive revisions are required and the manuscript will be reassessed.
Reject — the manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in its current form or contains deficiencies that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.
11. Review Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts according to scholarly relevance, originality and contribution, clarity of the research problem and objectives, appropriateness of methodology, validity of data and analysis, quality of results and discussion, support for conclusions, appropriate use of literature, quality of presentation, research integrity, and compliance with relevant ethical requirements.
12. Similarity and Research Integrity Screening
SITEKNIK applies an indicative maximum similarity threshold of 20% using Turnitin and/or iThenticate. Similarity percentages are treated as editorial screening indicators rather than automatic evidence of plagiarism. Reports and suspected integrity concerns are subject to human editorial assessment according to the nature, context, source, and location of potentially problematic overlap.
13. Confidentiality
Manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, editorial communications, unpublished data, and other materials submitted for review are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished manuscript content for unauthorized personal, scholarly, commercial, professional, or competitive advantage.
14. Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant financial, institutional, professional, collaborative, personal, competitive, or other conflicts that could reasonably affect impartiality. Reviewers with significant conflicts should decline the review assignment. Editors with conflicts must not participate in the editorial decision for the affected manuscript.
15. Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools

Reviewers and editors must not use generative AI systems to create substantive peer-review reports, editorial assessments, or publication decisions on their behalf.

Confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, or other protected editorial materials must not be uploaded to external generative AI systems where confidentiality, data retention, security, or reuse cannot be assured.

Where automated tools are used by the journal for routine integrity screening or technical assistance, their outputs remain subject to human editorial oversight and verification.

16. Submissions from Editors, Editorial Board Members, or Reviewers
Manuscripts authored or co-authored by an editor, editorial board member, or regular reviewer are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions. The individual concerned must not participate in the handling, reviewer selection, review, access, or editorial decision for their own manuscript. Responsibility must be assigned to an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest.
17. Citation Integrity
Reviewers and editors must not request unnecessary citations for the purpose of increasing citations to themselves, SITEKNIK, particular journals, authors, institutions, or other parties. Suggested references must be based solely on genuine scholarly relevance to the manuscript.
18. Appeals and Editorial Reconsideration
Authors may submit a reasoned written appeal when they believe that an editorial decision involved a significant factual, procedural, or evaluative error. Appeals should identify the specific grounds and provide relevant evidence. Appeals are considered by an editor or editorial board member who was not directly responsible for the original decision whenever practicable. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.
19. Special Issues and Thematic Collections
If SITEKNIK publishes a special issue, thematic collection, or content coordinated with a guest editor, research manuscripts remain subject to the same scholarly standards, independent external peer review, conflict-of-interest requirements, and editorial oversight applied to regular issues. The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the scholarly integrity of journal content.
20. Reviewer Conduct
Detailed responsibilities concerning reviewer confidentiality, conflicts of interest, constructive reporting, ethical concerns, AI use, citation recommendations, supplementary materials, co-review, and revised manuscripts are described in the SITEKNIK Reviewer Guidelines.
Editorial Independence Statement
Acceptance, rejection, revision, reviewer selection, and publication scheduling are based on scholarly and editorial considerations. Author fees, optional expedited processing, commercial interests, sponsorship, institutional relationships, or other financial considerations do not determine reviewer recommendations or editorial decisions. No submission is guaranteed acceptance or publication.