From manuscript submission to publication and post-publication review
Jurnal Pengabdian dan Pengembangan Masyarakat Indonesia (JPPMI) applies a structured editorial process to ensure the relevance, originality, ethical integrity, methodological soundness, and practical contribution of every published article.
All manuscripts are evaluated through editorial screening and double-anonymous peer review. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit and are independent of financial, institutional, personal, or commercial considerations.
Submission → Technical Check → Editorial Screening → Double-Anonymous Peer Review → Author Revision → Editorial Decision → Copyediting and Proofreading → Publication
Authors submit their manuscripts and supporting files through the journal's online submission system. Authors are responsible for providing complete and accurate metadata, including author names, affiliations, email addresses, ORCID identifiers, article title, abstract, keywords, references, funding information, and relevant ethical declarations.
The editorial office examines the submission for completeness and compliance with the journal's technical requirements. The check includes:
The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript. The assessment considers:
A manuscript may be declined without external review when it falls outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum scholarly standards, contains serious ethical concerns, or does not comply with the author guidelines.
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are examined for text similarity, duplicate publication, inappropriate attribution, redundant publication, and other potential research integrity concerns. Similarity reports are interpreted editorially and are not assessed solely on the basis of a numerical percentage. References, quotations, standard methodological expressions, and properly attributed material are considered during the evaluation.
Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject, intervention, population, or methodological approach of the manuscript.
Reviewer selection considers expertise, publication record, institutional independence, previous review quality, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. Authors may recommend reviewers; however, the editor is not required to use the recommendations and retains full responsibility for reviewer selection.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently using the journal's review criteria. The evaluation addresses:
Review reports and editorial correspondence are retained within the journal's editorial management system as part of the manuscript's review record.
When revision is requested, authors must submit:
Authors should clearly explain all changes and provide a reasoned response when a recommendation has not been followed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for additional evaluation.
The assigned editor evaluates the reviewer reports, the revised manuscript, and the authors' responses. Possible decisions are:
When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification or appoint an additional independent reviewer. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor and is not determined by reviewer votes alone.
Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, reference checking, metadata validation, layout preparation, and proofreading. Authors receive the article proof to identify production errors. Major changes to the content, authorship, results, or conclusions are not normally permitted at the proofreading stage unless approved by the editor.
Following final approval, the article is published with complete bibliographic metadata, a persistent Digital Object Identifier (DOI), licensing information, publication history, and the required author declarations. Article metadata is distributed to relevant registration, indexing, and discovery services.
The following periods are editorial targets rather than guarantees. The actual processing time may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds, and the authors' response time.
| Editorial Stage | Indicative Period |
|---|---|
| Administrative and editorial screening | Normally within 7 working days |
| Initial peer-review round | Approximately 3–4 weeks |
| Author revision | According to the extent of revision |
| Copyediting, layout, and proofreading | Normally 1–2 weeks after acceptance |
Editors and reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and withdraw from the evaluation when impartiality may be compromised. Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or persons affiliated with the publisher are handled by an independent editor who has no involvement with the authors. Editorial decisions are not influenced by article processing charges or other financial considerations.
Manuscripts, review reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not share, distribute, or use unpublished material for personal advantage. They must not upload manuscripts or identifiable manuscript content to generative artificial intelligence systems or other external services that cannot guarantee confidentiality. Artificial intelligence must not replace independent scholarly judgment in peer review or editorial decision-making.
