Double-anonymous, independent, and evidence-informed manuscript evaluation
Jurnal Pengabdian dan Pengembangan Masyarakat Indonesia (JPPMI) applies a double-anonymous peer-review process. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
Every manuscript that passes editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Peer review is intended to assess the academic quality, ethical integrity, methodological appropriateness, practical contribution, and relevance of the manuscript to community engagement and development.
The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, academic quality, ethical compliance, methodological adequacy, and conformity with the author guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum requirements may be declined without external review.
The editor appoints at least two independent reviewers on the basis of their subject expertise, methodological competence, publication record, previous review quality, availability, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
Reviewers should not be from the same institution as the authors and should not have a recent supervisory, financial, professional, or collaborative relationship that could compromise independent judgment.
Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript using the journal's review criteria and submit a written report through the journal's editorial management system. Reviewers are expected to provide specific, evidence-based, constructive, and professionally expressed recommendations.
Authors receiving a revision decision must respond to every reviewer and editor comment. A revised submission should include a clean manuscript, a marked or tracked-changes version, and a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers.
The editor considers the reviewer reports, the manuscript, and the authors' responses before making a decision. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not constitute a vote. The final decision is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.
If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may request clarification, conduct an additional assessment, or appoint a third independent reviewer.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following components:
| Component | Evaluation Criteria |
|---|---|
| Title and abstract | Accuracy, clarity, completeness, and consistency with the manuscript. |
| Community problem | Relevance, supporting evidence, needs assessment, and significance for the target community. |
| Originality | Novelty of the intervention, approach, evaluation, or transferable community-development lessons. |
| Methods | Appropriateness, transparency, reproducibility, participant selection, stakeholder involvement, and ethical compliance. |
| Intervention | Clear implementation stages, community participation, contextual appropriateness, and implementation fidelity. |
| Evaluation and results | Validity of indicators, adequacy of data, analytical accuracy, and correspondence between evidence and claims. |
| Discussion | Critical interpretation, relationship to relevant literature, practical implications, and acknowledgment of limitations. |
| Sustainability | Follow-up strategy, community ownership, potential continuation, scalability, or replication. |
| References | Relevance, recency, accuracy, balance, and adequate use of primary scholarly literature. |
| Presentation | Logical organization, scientific language, readability, and quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials. |
The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive revision.
Limited revisions are required without major changes to the study.
Substantial revisions and additional evaluation are required.
The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements.
The initial review round is normally expected to be completed within approximately three to four weeks after suitable reviewers have accepted the invitation. The total processing time depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, and the authors' response time. The journal prioritizes review quality and integrity over unusually rapid decision-making.
Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers should also avoid including identifying information in review reports or annotated manuscript files.
Reviewers must disclose any personal, professional, institutional, academic, intellectual, or financial relationship that could influence their judgment. A reviewer who cannot provide an impartial assessment must decline the invitation. Editors are responsible for evaluating disclosures and appointing a replacement when necessary.
Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, figures, data, supplementary files, or review reports to generative artificial intelligence systems or external services that cannot guarantee confidentiality. Artificial intelligence must not independently evaluate a manuscript, produce the substantive review, recommend an editorial decision, or replace the reviewer's scholarly judgment.
Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, reviewers, publisher representatives, or individuals affiliated with them do not receive preferential treatment. Such manuscripts are handled by an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. The submitting editor or related person has no access to reviewer identities and does not participate in reviewer selection or decision-making.
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that a decision resulted from a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or unmanaged conflict of interest. An appeal must identify the specific issue and provide supporting evidence. Disagreement with a reviewer's academic judgment alone is not sufficient. Appeals are evaluated by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision, whenever practicable.
