Peer Review Process

1. Review Model and Scope

Research articles, reports, and review articles that pass initial editorial screening undergo external peer review before acceptance. Each manuscript is assessed by at least two suitably qualified, independent reviewers who are not members of the journal's editorial team.

JSE uses a double-anonymous review process: author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. Handling editors have access to the information needed to administer the process.

Authors should remove identifying information from the review manuscript and its file properties, and provide author details separately as instructed by the submission system. The editorial office checks files for identifying information before review. Complete anonymity cannot always be assured, particularly where a study or preprint is already publicly identifiable.

Reviewer reports are communicated confidentially to authors through the editorial office without identifying the reviewers. Reports are not routinely published with articles. Supplementary materials necessary to evaluate the research are included in the review.

2. Editorial and Peer Review Stages

1. Submission and Initial Checks. The editorial office checks completeness, compliance with author guidelines, anonymization, and required declarations. Similarity screening supports editorial assessment; a similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism.
2. Editorial Screening. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor assesses scope, scholarly relevance, basic methodological suitability, and ethical concerns. A manuscript may be rejected without external review if it is unsuitable for the journal. Authors are informed of the reason for the decision.
3. Reviewer Selection. The handling editor selects reviewers with appropriate subject and methodological expertise and checks their independence and potential conflicts of interest.
4. Independent External Review. At least two reviewers assess the manuscript's contribution, methods, analysis, interpretation, reporting, and ethical considerations. Reviews should be objective, respectful, specific, and constructive.
5. Editorial Assessment. The handling editor evaluates the reports and the manuscript. Additional review may be requested when reports conflict, provide insufficient justification, or leave important questions unresolved.
6. Revision and Reassessment. Authors invited to revise should submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each comment was addressed. Revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by additional reviewers where necessary.
7. Final Decision. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor without a conflict of interest makes the decision to accept or reject the manuscript, taking account of the reviews, revisions, and journal criteria. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.
8. Production After Acceptance. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, and proofreading. Authors review proofs for accuracy. Production checks do not replace peer review; substantial scientific changes may require further editorial assessment.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality

• Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have the necessary expertise and can complete the review within an agreed timeframe.
• Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts, including employment at an author's institution, recent close collaboration, supervisory relationships, financial interests, or personal relationships that could affect impartiality.
• Reviewers must treat manuscripts, supplementary files, and correspondence as confidential. They must not use unpublished information for personal advantage or share the materials without editorial permission.
• Reviewers should not contact authors directly about the manuscript. Questions and concerns should be communicated through the handling editor.
• If a reviewer recognizes an author's identity, any resulting conflict of interest must be disclosed promptly to the editor.
• Concerns about plagiarism, unreliable data, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other potential misconduct should be reported confidentially to the editor with supporting information.

4. Editorial Decisions and Independence

Decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Reviewers provide advice; editorial decisions are not determined solely by a vote or numerical score.

Editors consider the validity of the research, the support for its conclusions, relevance to the journal's scope, and contribution to the literature. Findings are assessed on their merits rather than whether they are positive, statistically significant, or consistent with a preferred viewpoint.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by authors' nationality, gender, religion, institutional prestige, personal relationships, commercial interests, or ability to pay publication charges. Payment or a fee waiver does not guarantee acceptance.

Editorial Board members may provide advice within their expertise. Managing editors and editorial assistants support administration, communication, and record keeping. These roles do not replace independent external peer review.

5. Conflicts of Interest and Special Submissions

Submissions by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts authored by an editor, Editorial Board member, or someone with a close relationship to a handling editor are assigned to an independent editor. The conflicted editor does not select reviewers, access confidential deliberations, or participate in the decision.

Such manuscripts must meet the same standards and undergo the same independent external review as other submissions. Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author, decision-making responsibility is assigned to another qualified, independent editor.

Special Issues and Conference Submissions

Special-issue and conference-related manuscripts follow the same quality standards and external peer review requirements as regular submissions. Guest editors operate under the journal's editorial oversight, and the Editor-in-Chief remains responsible for the journal's content. Guest editors must not handle their own manuscripts or submissions involving a conflict of interest. Special-issue content is clearly identified.

6. Referred or Transferred Manuscripts

Manuscripts referred from another journal or submitted with previous reviewer reports are assessed against JSE's own editorial criteria. A referral, previous recommendation, or earlier review does not guarantee acceptance.

Previous reports may be considered as supporting information only when they have been shared with appropriate authorization and confidentiality protections. This includes the author's consent and, where required, permission from the originating journal and reviewers.

Referred manuscripts remain subject to JSE's requirement for assessment by at least two independent external reviewers appointed by the journal. Previous reports do not replace this requirement. Authors are informed of any further review or revision requested by JSE.

7. Review Timelines and Communication

Review duration depends on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revision rounds, and the responsiveness of the parties involved. JSE does not guarantee acceptance, a fixed review period, or publication within a specified deadline.

Peer review and post-acceptance production are separate stages. Any processing-time estimates published by the journal should be based on its editorial records and interpreted as indicative rather than guaranteed.

Authors are informed of significant delays and may contact the editorial office for an update. If delays are unacceptable, authors are given the opportunity to request withdrawal. Authors should obtain written confirmation of withdrawal before submitting the manuscript elsewhere.

8. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by explaining the grounds for appeal and providing a reasoned response to the decision and reviewer comments. Appeals should identify specific factual, scientific, or procedural concerns.

Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor without a conflict of interest. Where an appeal concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it is referred to an independent editor or an appropriate publisher representative who was not involved in the original decision.

Additional independent advice may be sought. Authors receive an explanation of the outcome, which may confirm or revise the original decision.

Complaints about editorial conduct, confidentiality, reviewer behavior, or the review process are assessed separately from scientific appeals. Relevant records are examined, and any person whose conduct is the subject of a complaint does not decide its outcome.

Appeals and complaints should be sent to the editorial office: jse@mediadigitalpublikasi.com . Include the manuscript ID and relevant supporting information.