Review Process

Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Amalee: Indonesian Journal of Community Research and Engagement undergo a rigorous screening and review process to ensure that they fit into the journal’s scope and are of sufficient academic quality and novelty to appeal to Amalee’s scholarly and readership.

Progression of a manuscript in Amalee

Desk review. Desk review is done based on the minimum writing adequacy as refer to Amalee’s author guideline such as minimum word numbers, update and reliability references, plagiarism, and sufficient body of manuscript (e.g. title, abstract, introduction, etc.). Plagiarism screening will be done using Turnitin. Manuscripts that fail to pass the desk review will be rejected without further review.

Initial manuscript evaluation. If the manuscript passes the desk review, it will be assigned to Editor-in-Chief and/or Managing Editor, who will then send it to the blind peer-review process. Manuscripts that fail to pass this process will also be rejected without further review.

Blind peer-review. If the manuscript passes the initial manuscript evaluation, it will be assigned to at least two peer-reviewers in the relevant field to undergo a blind peer-review procedure, where the reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. Manuscripts on this process will received the first decision.

First decision. A decision on a peer-reviewed manuscript will only be made upon the receipt of blind reviewing, where the reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. At this stage, a manuscript can either be (1) rejected; (2) asked for revisions (minor or major); (3) accepted as is; (4) or (if significant changes to the language or content are required) recommended for resubmission for a second review process. The final decision to accept the manuscript will be made by the Editor-in-Chief and/or based on the recommendation by the board of editors.

How the reviewer is selected?

Whenever possible, reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database is constantly being updated.

Reviewer reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: (1) is original; (2) is methodologically sound; (3) follows appropriate ethical guidelines; (4) sufficient scientific analysis & discussion has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions; (5) correctly & updated references previous relevant work; and (6) clear flow of writing and/or visualization of concept. Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.

Revision stage. A manuscript that requires minor or major revisions will be returned to the submitting author, who will have up to three weeks to format and revise the manuscript, following which it will be reviewed by the handling editor. The handling editor will determine whether the changes are adequate and appropriate, as well as whether the author(s) sufficiently responded to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. If the revisions are deemed to be inadequate, this cycle will be repeated (the manuscript will be returned to the submitting author once more for further revision) or rejected.

Final decision. A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees. If the author(s) are unable to make the required changes or have done so to a degree below Amalee’s standards, the manuscript will be rejected.

Editor’s decision is final. Reviewers and/or board of editor advise the Editor-in-Chief, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript.

Copyediting and typesetting. If the manuscript is accepted, it will go through a final round of editing and proofreading by an in-house language editor, following which it will be typeset and returned to the submitting author for final approval. All authors must approve this final version of the article before it can be officially published.

Manuscript Processing Time

The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the reviewer(s). Should the reviewer’s reports is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. The Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the reviewer(s), which usually includes verbatim comments. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial reviewer(s) who may then request another revision of a manuscript.