JPPMI | EDITORIAL MANAGEMENT
A transparent editorial process from manuscript submission to publication.
Jurnal Pengabdian dan Pengembangan Masyarakat Indonesia (JPPMI) applies a structured editorial workflow to ensure the relevance, originality, ethical integrity, methodological quality, and practical contribution of published community engagement articles.
Manuscripts are subject to editorial screening and, when eligible, double-anonymous peer review. Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, review evidence, and compliance with journal policies, independently of financial, institutional, personal, or commercial considerations.
Submission → Technical Check → Editorial Screening → Similarity Screening → Reviewer Selection → Double-Anonymous Review → Author Revision → Editorial Decision → Production → Publication
STAGE 01
Authors submit manuscripts and supporting documents through the JPPMI online submission system.
Authors must provide complete and accurate article metadata, including author names, affiliations, contact information, ORCID identifiers, titles, abstracts, keywords, funding information, and relevant ethical declarations.
STAGE 02
The editorial office verifies submission completeness and conformity with the journal's technical requirements.
STAGE 03
The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor assesses the manuscript's suitability for further evaluation.
The screening considers:
Manuscripts may be declined without external review if they fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet minimum scholarly standards, or present unresolved serious ethical concerns.
STAGE 04
Eligible manuscripts are examined for text similarity, plagiarism, inappropriate attribution, duplicate or redundant publication, and other potential publication integrity concerns.
Similarity reports are assessed contextually. References, legitimate quotations, standard methodological expressions, and appropriately attributed material are considered. A numerical similarity score alone does not determine whether plagiarism has occurred.
STAGE 05
Each manuscript proceeding to peer review is assigned to at least two independent reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript's subject, target community, intervention, or evaluation methods.
Reviewer selection considers academic expertise, independence, review experience, availability, and potential conflicts of interest.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but reviewer selection remains the responsibility of the editor.
STAGE 06
Reviewers independently assess the scholarly quality of the manuscript according to JPPMI's review criteria.
Assessment includes:
Review reports and relevant editorial correspondence are retained in the journal's editorial management system.
STAGE 07
Authors receiving a revision decision must address the comments of reviewers and editors carefully and transparently.
Revised submissions should include:
Authors should identify changes made and explain respectfully when a recommendation has not been adopted. Additional review rounds may be required.
STAGE 08
The assigned editor evaluates reviewer recommendations, manuscript revisions, author responses, and any unresolved scholarly or ethical concerns.
Possible editorial decisions include:
When reviewer assessments differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification or request an additional independent review. Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor and are not determined by reviewer votes alone.
STAGE 09
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, language and terminology checks, reference verification, metadata validation, article layout, and proofreading.
Authors may be asked to review publication proofs for production errors. Substantial changes to authorship, data, results, or conclusions at this stage require editorial approval.
STAGE 10
Following completion of production and final editorial approval, the article is published with relevant bibliographic metadata, DOI information, copyright and licensing details, publication history, and required declarations.
Article metadata is registered or distributed through relevant scholarly services according to their respective coverage and procedures. Published articles remain subject to the journal's post-publication ethics, correction, and retraction policies.
The following periods represent editorial targets, not guaranteed processing times. Actual duration may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and author response times.
| 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 |
These periods do not include a guarantee of acceptance or publication in a particular issue.
Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality. Individuals with a significant conflict must not participate in the relevant editorial assessment.
Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or individuals affiliated with the publisher must be handled by an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest.
Editorial decisions are independent of article processing charges, sponsorship, institutional affiliation, and personal or commercial relationships.
Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not disclose or use this material for personal advantage.
Manuscripts or identifiable manuscript information must not be uploaded to external generative AI services unless appropriate confidentiality, data protection, and journal policy requirements are satisfied.
Generative AI may not replace independent scholarly judgment in peer review, manuscript evaluation, or editorial decision-making. Editors and reviewers remain accountable for their assessments and decisions.
