shape
shape

Peer Review

Peer Review: Ensuring Academic Excellence

Our peer review process is the cornerstone of maintaining high academic standards and ensuring the quality, validity, and significance of published research. We employ a rigorous double-blind peer review system where expert reviewers critically evaluate manuscripts to provide constructive feedback and recommendations.

Peer review is not just about finding flaws—it's about improving research quality, ensuring methodological rigor, and advancing scholarly knowledge through constructive collaboration between authors and reviewers.

Our Review Philosophy

Our Review System

 
Double-Blind Peer Review

Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. This ensures unbiased evaluation based solely on the scientific merit of the work, eliminating potential conflicts of interest or institutional bias.

 
Multiple Expert Reviewers

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. This multi-perspective approach ensures comprehensive assessment of methodology, results, and contribution to the field.

Review Process Timeline

 
Submission

Author submits manuscript through online system

Day 0
 
Initial Screening

Editor checks scope, quality, and guidelines compliance

3-5 days
 
Peer Review

Expert reviewers evaluate and provide feedback

3-6 weeks
 
Editorial Decision

Editor makes final decision based on reviews

1-2 weeks

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following key criteria:

Scientific Quality
  • Originality and novelty of research
  • Soundness of methodology
  • Validity and reliability of results
  • Appropriate data analysis
  • Logical interpretation of findings
Presentation Quality
  • Clarity and organization of content
  • Quality of writing and language
  • Appropriateness of figures and tables
  • Completeness of references
  • Adherence to journal guidelines

Possible Decisions

Accept

Manuscript meets all quality standards and is accepted for publication with minor or no revisions required.

Minor Revision

Manuscript is promising but requires small improvements in presentation, clarification, or additional analysis.

Major Revision

Manuscript has potential but needs substantial revisions in methodology, analysis, or interpretation before reconsideration.

Reject

Manuscript does not meet quality standards, falls outside journal scope, or has fundamental methodological flaws.

For Authors

What to Expect
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed comments to help improve your manuscript
  • Fair Evaluation: Double-blind process ensures unbiased assessment
  • Timely Review: We strive to complete reviews within 3-6 weeks
  • Clear Communication: You'll receive detailed reviewer comments and editor's decision
  • Revision Opportunity: Most manuscripts require revisions—this is normal and expected
  • Response Required: Address all reviewer comments in your revision and response letter

For Reviewers

Become a Reviewer

We welcome experts in various fields to join our reviewer pool. Contributing as a reviewer helps advance your field, keeps you updated with latest research, and enhances your own research skills.

  • PhD or equivalent qualification
  • Active research in relevant field
  • Publication track record
  • Commitment to timely reviews
Reviewer Responsibilities

As a reviewer, you play a crucial role in maintaining academic integrity and quality. Your expertise and constructive feedback help authors improve their work.

  • Complete reviews within deadline
  • Provide constructive feedback
  • Maintain confidentiality
  • Declare conflicts of interest
  • Be objective and fair

Review Ethics

Ethical Standards

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss manuscripts with others.

Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, based on scientific merit without personal bias or criticism.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflicts and decline review if unable to provide unbiased evaluation.

Constructive Feedback

Comments should be constructive, respectful, and aimed at improving the manuscript quality.

For Authors

Submit your manuscript and benefit from expert peer review that will help strengthen your research and increase its impact.

Submit Manuscript
For Reviewers

Join our expert reviewer panel and contribute to advancing scholarly research in your field of expertise.

Become a Reviewer
Questions About Peer Review?

If you have questions about our peer review process, timeline, or reviewer guidelines, please contact our editorial office.

Email: journal@msti-indonesia.com
Phone: +62 85277777449