Editorial and Peer Review Policy

Editorial Governance

Editorial and Peer Review Policy

Multidisciplinary Journals (MJ)  |  e-ISSN 3047-8499

Multidisciplinary Journals (MJ) publishes original scholarly work that is relevant to its stated disciplines and meets appropriate standards of academic quality, methodological rigor, research integrity, and ethical compliance. Manuscripts are assessed through independent editorial evaluation and, where suitable, double-anonymous peer review.

This policy is informed by the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Review modelDouble-anonymous: author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other.
ReviewersNormally at least two independent experts for each research manuscript sent for external review.
Decision authorityThe assigned editor recommends or decides; the Editor-in-Chief retains final editorial responsibility.
Editorial recordSubmissions, review reports, revisions, decisions, and correspondence are documented in OJS.

1. Purpose and Policy Boundaries

This page governs how manuscripts are screened, assigned, reviewed, revised, and decided. To prevent overlap:

Journal Page Primary Function
Editorial and Peer Review Policy Editorial authority, independence, reviewer selection, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, decision standards, and procedural safeguards.
Peer Review Process A concise step-by-step workflow from submission to decision and production.
Reviewer Guidelines Detailed evaluation criteria and instructions for preparing a constructive review report.
Publication Ethics Policy Ethical duties of authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher, including responses to suspected misconduct.

2. Governing Editorial Principles

  • Academic merit: decisions are based on originality, validity, significance, clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.
  • Fairness and inclusion: manuscripts are evaluated without discrimination based on personal identity, nationality, institutional affiliation, seniority, political belief, or other irrelevant characteristics.
  • Editorial independence: commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, institutional pressure, author fees, or personal relationships must not influence reviewer selection or editorial decisions.
  • Confidentiality: submitted manuscripts and review records are confidential editorial documents and are accessed only by authorized persons.
  • Conflict management: editors and reviewers must disclose relevant competing interests and recuse themselves when impartial assessment cannot be assured.
  • Accountability: material decisions and procedural actions are recorded in OJS and may be reviewed under the journal's appeals, complaints, and publication-ethics procedures.

3. Editorial and Peer Review Workflow

1
Submission through OJSAuthors must submit the manuscript and required metadata through the journal's official OJS submission page. Email or messaging applications may be used for support or notifications but do not replace the official submission record. Authors must follow the Author Guidelines.
2
Technical and Integrity ScreeningThe editorial office checks completeness, journal format, authorship and affiliations, required declarations, reference quality, file anonymity, ethical approval where relevant, similarity, duplicate submission, and conformity with the journal's scope. A manuscript may be returned for correction before editorial evaluation.
3
Preliminary Editorial EvaluationThe Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor assesses fit with the Focus and Scope, originality, scholarly contribution, methodological plausibility, readability, ethical compliance, and readiness for external review. Manuscripts that are out of scope, inadequately prepared, insufficiently original, methodologically untenable, unethical, or clearly below the journal's threshold may be declined without external review. A desk rejection must be communicated with an appropriate reason.
4
Reviewer Selection and InvitationThe handling editor selects normally at least two reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Reviewer identity, expertise, affiliation, publication record, contact information, availability, and potential conflicts are checked. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but are not guaranteed and must not determine the outcome.
5
Independent Double-Anonymous ReviewReviewers evaluate the anonymized manuscript independently. Reviewers normally do not communicate directly with authors; communications are mediated through the editor and OJS. The journal does not disclose reviewer identities to authors or author identities to reviewers, subject to information that may already be publicly available outside the journal's control.
6
Editorial Assessment of ReportsThe handling editor evaluates the quality, relevance, internal consistency, and evidentiary basis of the reports. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. When reports conflict materially, lack sufficient reasoning, or do not cover necessary expertise, the editor may seek clarification, invite an additional reviewer, or conduct further editorial assessment.
7
Revision and Author ResponseFor a revision decision, authors must submit a clean revised manuscript, a marked or tracked version when requested, and a point-by-point response explaining how every comment was addressed or providing a reasoned academic response where a suggestion was not adopted. A revision may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the changes.
8
Final Decision and ProductionThe Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor issues a reasoned decision after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, journal policy, and integrity requirements. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, author proofing, and publication. Acceptance remains subject to resolution of any material ethical, legal, or integrity concern identified before publication.

4. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Reviewers are selected for appropriate disciplinary or methodological expertise, independence, reliability, and ability to provide a timely and constructive assessment. The journal seeks diversity of institutions and perspectives while prioritizing competence and impartiality.

A reviewer must decline or disclose a potential conflict when a personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, institutional, or collaborative relationship may reasonably affect impartiality. Editors should normally avoid reviewers who:

  • are employed by the same institution as an author;
  • have a recent close collaboration, supervisory, mentorship, family, or financial relationship with an author;
  • have a direct competitive interest in the results; or
  • cannot evaluate the manuscript objectively or within the agreed period.

The editor determines whether a disclosed interest requires recusal, replacement, or another safeguard. Reviewers must not delegate a review or involve a colleague or trainee without prior permission from the editor; any approved contributor to a review must be identified and bound by the same confidentiality obligations.

5. Confidentiality and Responsible Use of Manuscripts

  • Editors, reviewers, and authorized staff must not disclose, distribute, discuss, quote, or use unpublished material for personal, institutional, or commercial advantage.
  • Files must be stored and handled only through authorized systems and must not be uploaded to public or third-party generative AI services that may retain, process, or train on confidential content.
  • Any permitted use of an approved assistive tool must comply with confidentiality, privacy, and the journal's Generative AI Policy. Human editors and reviewers remain fully responsible for their assessments.
  • Confidentiality continues after a review is completed, a reviewer declines an invitation, or a manuscript is rejected or withdrawn.

6. Review Criteria and Report Standards

Reviewers are asked to assess whether the manuscript:

Originality and contribution
States the problem, research gap, purpose, and scholarly or practical contribution clearly.
Methodological rigor
Uses methods, evidence, analysis, and reporting appropriate to the discipline and research question.
Results and interpretation
Presents results accurately and supports conclusions without overstatement.
Ethics and integrity
Addresses approvals, consent, welfare, privacy, authorship, data, competing interests, and other relevant requirements.
Clarity and structure
Is coherent, sufficiently complete, and understandable to its intended scholarly audience.
References and context
Engages appropriately with relevant literature and avoids unsupported or coercive citation practices.

Reports must be evidence-based, specific, constructive, and professionally expressed. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, hostile comments, unsupported allegations, plagiarism of another review, coercive citation, and demands for irrelevant citations are prohibited. Reviewers assess scholarly quality; they are not expected to provide copyediting or rewrite the manuscript in their preferred style.

7. Editorial Decisions

Decision Meaning
Accept The manuscript is accepted for production, subject to editorial and technical checks.
Minor revision Limited changes are required and may normally be assessed by the editor.
Major revision Substantial changes or additional clarification are required; the revised manuscript may undergo another review round.
Reject and resubmit A fundamentally reworked manuscript may be considered as a new submission without any assurance of external review or acceptance.
Reject The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements or cannot be made suitable through proportionate revision.

Reviewer votes are not counted mechanically. The editor must exercise independent judgment and may depart from a recommendation when a reason is documented. A decision is binding for the current editorial stage but may be challenged through the journal's formal Appeals and Complaints Policy. An appeal requests review of a material factual or procedural issue and is not an automatic additional review round.

8. Indicative Processing Targets

The following are service targets, not guarantees. Actual time depends on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision complexity, ethical inquiries, and author responsiveness.

Stage Indicative Target
Technical and preliminary screening Within 7–14 working days
Initial external review round Normally 3–6 weeks after reviewer acceptance
Author revision Deadline stated in the decision letter
Editorial decision after complete reports Normally within 10 working days
Important: The journal does not guarantee acceptance, a favorable recommendation, or publication by a fixed date. Any paid administrative or priority service must not shorten, bypass, predetermine, or influence independent peer review and editorial decision-making.

9. Special and Exceptional Cases

9.1 Editor or Editorial-Board Member as Author

A submission authored by an editor, editorial-board member, reviewer, staff member, or publisher representative must be handled by an independent editor who has no material conflict. The author-editor must not access reviewer identities, confidential reports, or decision functions for the submission. The relevant editorial relationship should be disclosed in the published article where appropriate.

9.2 Invited Content and Non-Research Material

Invited manuscripts are not guaranteed acceptance and are subject to relevant editorial and ethical checks. Editorials, corrections, obituaries, book reviews, or other content may use a form of editorial review appropriate to the article type. If an article is exempt from the journal's usual external peer review, its publication page must state the review process received.

9.3 Suspected Misconduct or Unreliable Findings

When plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, duplicate publication, authorship abuse, compromised peer review, unethical research, or another integrity concern is suspected, routine review may be paused. The editor may request evidence, consult relevant experts, follow an applicable COPE process, and contact an institution or competent body where necessary. The matter is handled under the journal's Publication Ethics and post-publication policies.

10. Peer Review Integrity and Manipulation Prevention

  • Reviewer invitations must be sent to independently verified professional or institutional addresses whenever feasible.
  • The editorial office may verify identity through institutional profiles, ORCID, publication records, or other reputable scholarly sources.
  • Authors must disclose any relationship with suggested reviewers and must not provide fabricated identities, false email addresses, or reviewer reports.
  • Reviewers must not impersonate another person, transfer an invitation without permission, use confidential material, or coordinate a predetermined outcome.
  • Evidence of review manipulation may lead to cancellation of review, rejection, correction or retraction, and notification of relevant institutions or authorities.

11. Reviewer Recognition and Recruitment

Reviewers serve as independent scholarly volunteers and receive no payment for the content or recommendation of a review. The journal may provide acknowledgement or a review certificate without disclosing confidential manuscript information. Recognition must never be linked to a favorable recommendation.

Researchers interested in reviewing should provide their full name, institutional affiliation, academic email, ORCID or scholarly profile, areas of expertise, and a brief publication record through the official journal contact page or WhatsApp at +62 813-7435-0305. Registration does not guarantee appointment; reviewers are selected according to manuscript needs, expertise, independence, and performance.

12. Record Keeping, Quality Assurance, and Policy Review

The journal maintains confidential editorial records in OJS, including submission dates, assignments, reviewer invitations and responses, reports, revisions, decisions, and correspondence. Access is limited according to assigned roles and legitimate editorial needs. Records may be reviewed internally to monitor timeliness, reviewer quality, conflicts of interest, decision consistency, ethical cases, and compliance with published procedures.

The Editor-in-Chief and publisher periodically review this policy and the practical operation of the peer-review system. Material policy changes are dated and published transparently. A good-faith concern regarding an editor, reviewer, decision, delay, confidentiality breach, conflict of interest, or procedural irregularity may be reported under the journal's Appeals and Complaints Policy.

Submit and Track Through OJS The OJS record is the authoritative record of submission, review, revision, and editorial decision. Submission Page Contact the Journal