REVIEWER GUIDELINES

REVIEWER GUIDELINES
 
Guidance for Fair, Constructive, Confidential, and Ethical Peer Review
SITEKNIK: Sistem Informasi, Teknik dan Teknologi Terapan
E-ISSN 3032-3991 | P-ISSN 3090-1626
1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scholarly quality, credibility, originality, methodological soundness, and ethical integrity of articles considered for publication in SITEKNIK. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, evidence-based, constructive, and respectful assessments that assist both the editorial team and authors in improving the quality of scholarly work.

2. Review Model
SITEKNIK applies a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed during the review process as far as technically and reasonably possible. Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
Reviewer recommendations support the editorial decision-making process. The final editorial decision is made by the authorized editor and is not determined by reviewer voting alone.
3. Before Accepting a Review Assignment

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should determine whether the manuscript falls within their area of knowledge and whether they can provide an informed and impartial assessment.

Reviewers should also consider whether they can complete the review within the period requested by the editorial office. If additional time is required, the reviewer should inform the editor as early as possible.

A reviewer who lacks sufficient expertise, has a relevant conflict of interest, or is unable to complete the review within a reasonable time should decline the invitation promptly. Where appropriate, the reviewer may suggest alternative qualified reviewers to the editor.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, personal, academic, competitive, or other relationship that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the impartiality of the review.

When a significant conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should normally decline the assignment and notify the editor. If the reviewer is uncertain whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, the matter should be disclosed to the editorial office before proceeding.

5. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for peer review are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, publish, upload, or otherwise share the manuscript, supplementary files, review communications, unpublished data, figures, methods, ideas, or other confidential material with unauthorized persons.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, commercial, competitive, or research advantage.

Reviewers should not attempt to identify or contact authors directly. All communication concerning the manuscript should take place through the SITEKNIK editorial system or editorial office.

6. Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts when using digital or automated tools. Manuscripts, supplementary files, unpublished data, images, or confidential review material must not be uploaded to external generative AI systems or other services where confidentiality, data retention, or reuse cannot be assured.

Generative AI should not be used to produce the substantive scientific evaluation, recommendation, or reviewer report on behalf of the reviewer. Peer review requires the reviewer's own expert judgment and accountability.

Routine technical tools may be used where they do not compromise confidentiality, but reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality, and content of their review.

7. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Criterion Reviewer Consideration
Scope & Relevance Is the manuscript relevant to SITEKNIK's Focus and Scope and appropriate for its scholarly readership?
Originality & Novelty Does the manuscript present an original contribution, meaningful development, application, validation, synthesis, or advancement of knowledge?
Research Problem Are the research problem, gap, objectives, and contribution clearly defined?
Methodology Are the research design, data, sampling, procedures, instruments, algorithms, experiments, validation, or analytical methods appropriate and sufficiently explained?
Results Are the results presented clearly, supported by the analysis, and consistent with the methods and available evidence?
Discussion Are findings interpreted critically and compared appropriately with relevant previous research and established knowledge?
Conclusions Are the conclusions supported by the results and consistent with the stated objectives without unsupported generalization?
References Are references relevant, balanced, sufficiently current where appropriate, and used accurately?
Presentation Is the manuscript logically organized, understandable, and supported by clear tables, figures, equations, or supplementary material where appropriate?
Ethics & Integrity Are relevant ethical approval, informed consent, attribution, data integrity, conflicts of interest, and other research-integrity matters appropriately addressed?
8. TKT and SDG Claims
Where authors identify a Technology Readiness Level (TKT 1–9) or claim relevance to one or more Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reviewers should assess whether the claim is reasonably supported by the objectives, methods, validation, implementation, results, or demonstrated application of the research. TKT or SDG identification should not be treated as mandatory for manuscripts where such classifications are not scientifically relevant.
9. Data, Code, and Supplementary Materials

Reviewers may evaluate datasets, supporting data, source code, research instruments, technical documentation, or other supplementary materials supplied as part of the manuscript submission when they are relevant to the scholarly assessment.

If additional information is necessary to evaluate a material claim, reviewers may recommend that the editor request clarification or appropriate supporting material from the authors. Reviewers should not independently contact authors to obtain such materials.

10. Similarity, Plagiarism, and Duplicate Publication

SITEKNIK applies an indicative maximum similarity threshold of 20% using Turnitin and/or iThenticate. The similarity percentage is a screening indicator and is not by itself proof of plagiarism.

Reviewers should focus on the nature and context of potentially problematic overlap. If plagiarism, inappropriate paraphrasing, duplicate publication, redundant publication, unattributed translation, figure or data duplication, or another integrity concern is suspected, the reviewer should confidentially notify the editor and provide sufficient detail to support further editorial assessment.

Reviewers should not conduct investigations directly with authors, institutions, or third parties.

11. Citations and Citation Manipulation

Reviewers may recommend additional references only when they are genuinely relevant and necessary to improve the scientific context, accuracy, completeness, or interpretation of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewer's own publications, publications from SITEKNIK, particular journals, authors, institutions, or unrelated works for the purpose of increasing citations, metrics, visibility, or personal advantage. Recommendations for references must be based solely on legitimate scholarly relevance.

12. Reporting Ethical Concerns
Reviewers should confidentially inform the editor if they identify or reasonably suspect fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, authorship concerns, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, privacy violations, or other potential breaches of research or publication ethics. Reviewers should describe the concern objectively and provide supporting information where possible.
13. Writing the Review Report

Reviewer comments should be specific, constructive, evidence-based, and written in professional language. Criticism should address the manuscript and its scholarly content rather than the authors personally.

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between major issues that affect the validity, interpretation, originality, or contribution of the manuscript and minor issues involving presentation, clarity, references, formatting, or limited corrections.

Where the review system provides separate fields for comments to authors and confidential comments to the editor, reviewers should clearly distinguish between information intended for the authors and information that should remain confidential to the editorial team.

14. Reviewer Recommendations
Depending on the options available in the journal management system, reviewers may recommend:
Accept — the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
Minor Revision — limited changes are required without substantial alteration of the principal research.
Major Revision — substantial revision, clarification, additional analysis, validation, or restructuring is required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Reject — the manuscript has major scientific, methodological, ethical, originality, scope, or other deficiencies that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.
The recommendation should be consistent with the written review. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the editor retains responsibility for the final decision.
15. Review of Revised Manuscripts
When invited to evaluate a revised manuscript, reviewers should consider the revised article together with the authors' response to previous comments. Reviewers should determine whether substantive concerns have been addressed adequately and should avoid introducing unrelated new requirements unless a newly identified issue materially affects the validity, integrity, or interpretation of the study.
16. Co-Review and Assistance
Reviewers must not share a manuscript with colleagues, students, trainees, or other individuals without prior authorization from the editor. Where co-review is considered appropriate for training or specialist input, prior editorial approval must be obtained and all contributors must comply with the same confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, and ethical obligations applicable to the invited reviewer.
17. After Completing the Review
Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been submitted and after a final editorial decision has been made. Reviewers should securely delete or appropriately dispose of manuscript files and confidential review materials when they are no longer required for the authorized review process, subject to the functionality and records retained within the journal's editorial system.
18. Editorial Independence
Peer-review evaluations and editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, methodological quality, relevance, originality, ethical integrity, and the evidence presented in the manuscript. Reviewers must not allow financial considerations, author fees, institutional relationships, personal preferences, commercial interests, or other non-scholarly factors to influence their assessment.
Reviewer Integrity Statement
By accepting a review assignment for SITEKNIK, reviewers are expected to conduct the evaluation independently, fairly, confidentially, and in good faith; disclose relevant conflicts of interest; protect unpublished scholarly material; avoid citation or editorial manipulation; and provide constructive expert judgment consistent with SITEKNIK's Peer Review Policy and Publication Ethics.