JPPMI | EDITORIAL STANDARDS
Independent, confidential, and evidence-informed evaluation of scholarly community engagement manuscripts.
Jurnal Pengabdian dan Pengembangan Masyarakat Indonesia (JPPMI) applies a double-anonymous peer-review process. Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's discipline, community engagement intervention, or evaluation methods.
The purpose of peer review is to assess scholarly quality, methodological transparency, ethical integrity, relevance to community needs, and the credibility of reported outcomes.
| Review model | Double-anonymous |
| Minimum reviewers | Two independent reviewers |
| Initial review target | Approximately 3–4 weeks |
| Final decision | Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor |
STAGE 01
The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates the manuscript's relevance to JPPMI's aims and scope, originality, scholarly contribution, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance, and conformity with the Author Guidelines.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's minimum editorial or scholarly requirements may be declined without external peer review.
STAGE 02
The assigned editor appoints at least two independent reviewers based on subject expertise, methodological competence, relevant scholarly experience, availability, and the absence of significant conflicts of interest.
Reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors or have recent supervisory, collaborative, financial, or professional relationships that could compromise independent judgment.
STAGE 03
Reviewers independently assess the anonymized manuscript using the journal's review criteria and submit written evaluations through the editorial management system.
Review comments should identify strengths, limitations, methodological concerns, and practical suggestions for improvement. Recommendations must be supported by clear academic reasoning and communicated professionally.
STAGE 04
Authors receiving a revision decision must address the reviewers' and editors' comments carefully and transparently.
A revised submission should include:
Authors should explain changes made and provide scholarly justification for any recommendation not adopted. Revised manuscripts may undergo another review round.
STAGE 05
The editor evaluates reviewer reports, author responses, manuscript revisions, and any unresolved scholarly or ethical concerns.
Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not constitute a vote. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.
When reviewer reports differ substantially, the editor may request clarification, undertake further assessment, or appoint an additional independent reviewer.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to their relevance and contribution to scholarly community engagement, including the following components.
| Component | Evaluation Focus |
|---|---|
| Title and Abstract | Clarity, accuracy, completeness, and consistency with the manuscript. |
| Community Problem | Relevance, baseline evidence, needs assessment, and significance for the target community. |
| Originality | Contribution of the intervention, implementation approach, evaluation, or transferable lessons. |
| Methods | Transparency of procedures, participant selection, stakeholder roles, and ethical compliance. |
| Intervention | Program stages, community participation, contextual appropriateness, and implementation fidelity. |
| Evaluation and Results | Appropriateness of indicators, data quality, analytical accuracy, and alignment between findings and claims. |
| Discussion | Critical interpretation, relevant literature, practical implications, and limitations. |
| Sustainability | Follow-up plans, community ownership, potential continuation, or transferability. |
| References | Relevance, currency, accuracy, and appropriate use of primary literature. |
| Presentation | Logical organization, scientific language, readability, tables, figures, and supporting material. |
The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive changes.
Limited revisions are required to improve clarity, presentation, or specific aspects of reporting.
Substantial revisions are necessary to address significant scholarly, methodological, or reporting concerns.
The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements or has concerns that cannot be resolved through revision.
Editorial Authority: Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor.
The initial peer-review round is normally expected to be completed within approximately three to four weeks after suitable reviewers accept their invitations.
This period is indicative rather than guaranteed. Processing times depend on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional assessments, the number of revision rounds, and author response times. JPPMI prioritizes review quality over unusually rapid decisions.
Manuscripts, supplementary documents, editorial correspondence, and reviewer reports are confidential throughout the peer-review process.
Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers should also remove identifying information from annotated files and review reports to preserve anonymity.
Reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, academic, professional, intellectual, or personal relationship that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their assessment.
Reviewers who cannot provide an impartial evaluation must decline the assignment. Editors are responsible for evaluating disclosures and appointing another reviewer when appropriate.
Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, figures, supplementary files, unpublished data, or review reports to generative AI services that cannot guarantee appropriate confidentiality and data protection.
Generative AI must not independently assess scholarly quality, prepare substantive reviews, determine reviewer recommendations, or replace professional academic judgment.
Reviewers and editors remain personally accountable for the accuracy, independence, confidentiality, and integrity of their assessments.
Manuscripts submitted by editorial team members, reviewers, publisher representatives, or individuals with relevant institutional or personal connections must not receive preferential treatment.
Such submissions are handled by an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest. The submitting editor or related person must not participate in reviewer selection, reviewer communications, or editorial decision-making concerning their own manuscript.
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe an editorial decision involved a significant factual error, a procedural irregularity, or an unmanaged conflict of interest.
An appeal must clearly identify the grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting information. Disagreement with a reviewer's scholarly judgment alone is not sufficient grounds for appeal.
Appeals are evaluated by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision whenever practicable. The outcome may involve clarification, additional assessment, or confirmation of the original decision.
