REVIEW PROCESS POLICY

Review Process Policy

  1. General Policy

Jurnal SIMETRIK (Sipil, Mesin, Listrik), published by the Research and Community Service Center (P3M) of Politeknik Negeri Ambon, applies a peer-review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, and scientific contribution of submitted manuscripts.

The journal publishes original research articles and conceptual studies in civil engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and related fields. All manuscripts are evaluated by qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the submission.

The peer-review process aims to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of scientific quality, academic integrity, and relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

  1. Type of Peer Review

Jurnal SIMETRIK uses a blind review system to support an objective and fair evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Under this system, reviewers evaluate manuscripts without being provided with the authors' identities during the review process. Authors are expected to prepare their manuscripts in accordance with the journal's submission guidelines to facilitate an impartial assessment.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and must not disclose or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine whether it meets the journal's basic requirements.

The initial screening considers:

  • Relevance to the focus and scope of Jurnal SIMETRIK.
  • Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript template.
  • Originality and compliance with publication ethics.
  • Clarity of the research objectives and scientific contribution.
  • Completeness of the manuscript and required submission information.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected before external review.

  1. Peer-Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are forwarded to qualified reviewers whose expertise corresponds to the subject of the research.

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  1. Originality: The extent to which the manuscript presents original findings, ideas, or scientific contributions.
  2. Relevance: The suitability of the manuscript for the journal's focus and scope.
  3. Scientific Quality: The soundness of the research design, methodology, analysis, and interpretation of results.
  4. Validity of Findings: Whether the conclusions are supported by the data, analysis, and evidence presented.
  5. Literature Review: The adequacy and relevance of the cited scientific literature.
  6. Clarity and Organization: The quality of the manuscript's structure, language, presentation, tables, and figures.
  7. Research Ethics: Compliance with applicable ethical standards and responsible research practices.

Reviewers provide comments, recommendations, and suggestions for improvement to assist the editor in reaching an informed editorial decision.

  1. Editorial Decisions

Following the review process, the editor considers the reviewers' comments and recommendations before making a decision.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision.
  • Minor Revision: The authors are requested to make limited revisions before a final decision.
  • Major Revision: The authors are required to address substantial comments concerning the methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation of the research.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor to determine whether the concerns have been adequately addressed.

The final publication decision rests with the editor in accordance with the journal's editorial policies.

  1. Notification of Editorial Decisions

According to the journal's published peer-review policy, authors are notified of acceptance or rejection no later than one week after the manuscript has been reviewed.

If authors have not received a notification within one week after the review process is completed, they may contact the editorial board to inquire about the status of their manuscript.

This notification period refers to the communication of the editorial decision following review and should not be interpreted as a guarantee that the entire submission-to-publication process will be completed within one week.

  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally.
  • Provide constructive comments supported by scientific reasoning.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.
  • Identify relevant published work that has not been properly cited.
  • Disclose potential conflicts of interest.
  • Inform the editor of concerns regarding possible plagiarism, data manipulation, or other research misconduct.
  • Submit their assessments within the timeframe agreed upon with the editorial team.

Reviewers must not allow personal, institutional, financial, or professional interests to influence their evaluations.

  1. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

  • Submit original work that has not been previously published or submitted simultaneously to another journal.
  • Ensure that the manuscript follows the journal's author guidelines.
  • Respond to reviewer comments accurately and professionally.
  • Provide a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response when revisions are requested.
  • Disclose relevant conflicts of interest and funding sources.
  • Maintain the accuracy and integrity of research data and reported findings.

Authors should clearly explain any reviewer recommendations they do not adopt and provide scientific justification where appropriate.

  1. Confidentiality and Publication Ethics

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Editorial team members and reviewers must not disclose manuscript contents or review discussions to unauthorized individuals.

The journal is committed to preventing plagiarism, conflicts of interest, manipulation of peer review, and other forms of publication misconduct.

Any concerns arising during the review process will be assessed in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

  1. Final Policy Statement

Jurnal SIMETRIK is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, and academically rigorous peer-review process. Through qualified reviewers, objective editorial assessment, and constructive feedback, the journal seeks to improve the quality of submitted manuscripts and ensure the reliability of its published scientific contributions.

The editorial team may periodically review and update this policy to maintain consistency with the journal's publication standards and developments in scholarly publishing.