Peer Review Process

1. Overview

Jurnal Fakultas Teknik UNISA KUNINGAN (p-ISSN 2746-1209 | e-ISSN 2746-220X) is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of all published articles through a rigorous and transparent peer review process.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial screening and, if considered suitable, are evaluated by qualified peer reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.

The peer review process aims to assess the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, validity of findings, relevance to the journal's focus and scope, and contribution to the advancement of engineering and applied technology.

2. Type of Peer Review

The journal applies a [single-blind / double-blind] peer review system.

Under a single-blind review system, reviewers know the identities of the authors, while the identities of reviewers are kept confidential from the authors.

Under a double-blind review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

The journal's review system must be selected and consistently implemented by the editorial team. Manuscripts are assigned to reviewers based on their expertise, research experience, and the absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

3. Stages of the Peer Review Process

Stage 1: Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Submissions must comply with the journal's author guidelines, manuscript template, and publication ethics policies.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript is original, properly referenced, scientifically sound, and not simultaneously submitted to another journal.

Stage 2: Initial Editorial Screening

The editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic requirements. This screening includes:

Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
Compliance with the manuscript template and submission guidelines.
Completeness of the manuscript and required submission documents.
Preliminary assessment of originality and possible plagiarism.
Basic evaluation of scientific relevance and research quality.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be rejected at this stage or returned to the authors for correction before further consideration.

Stage 3: Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers whose expertise matches the subject of the research.

The journal seeks independent assessments from at least two reviewers per manuscript, subject to the journal's adopted editorial policy. Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment.

The editor is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers and ensuring that the evaluation process is conducted fairly and professionally.

Stage 4: Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on scientific and technical criteria, including:

Originality and novelty of the research.
Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
Clarity of the research objectives and problem statement.
Appropriateness of the research methods and procedures.
Validity of the data, analysis, and interpretation of results.
Consistency between the results, discussion, and conclusions.
Adequacy and relevance of the references.
Scientific contribution and potential practical applications.
Clarity of presentation, organization, and academic language.
Compliance with relevant research ethics principles.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to assist the editor in making an informed editorial decision.

Stage 5: Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's independent assessment, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantial further revision, subject to final editorial preparation.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially change the research design or main findings.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions, additional clarification, further analysis, or other significant improvements before it can be reconsidered.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

A revision request does not guarantee acceptance. The final decision rests with the editor after considering the revised manuscript and the reviewers' recommendations.

Stage 6: Manuscript Revision

Authors receiving a revision decision must revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' and editor's comments.

Authors should submit:

A revised version of the manuscript.
A point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.
A clear explanation and justification for any recommendation that has not been followed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial revisions are required.

Stage 7: Final Editorial Decision

After evaluating the revised manuscript and any additional reviewer reports, the editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection.

The editor ensures that the manuscript meets the journal's scientific standards, formatting requirements, and publication ethics policies before it proceeds to production.

Stage 8: Copyediting, Layout, and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo editorial preparation, which may include language editing, reference checking, formatting, and typesetting.

Authors may be asked to verify the final proofs before publication. Once the production process is complete, the article is published online according to the journal's publication schedule.

4. Review Duration

The duration of the review process depends on the manuscript's complexity, reviewer availability, the time required for revisions, and the responsiveness of the authors.

The editorial team seeks to process submissions as efficiently as possible without compromising the quality and integrity of peer review.

Target review duration: [Insert the journal's actual target, for example, 4–8 weeks for the initial review decision.]

The target duration is an