Peer Review Policy

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

1. Purpose and Scope

Peer review supports the editor in evaluating whether a manuscript is relevant, original, methodologically sound, ethically acceptable, clearly reported, and capable of making a meaningful contribution within the journal's Focus and Scope. Peer review is an expert advisory process; it is not a guarantee that every error, limitation, or ethical problem will be identified.

This page governs which content is externally reviewed, the review model, reviewer selection, anonymity, stages, indicative timeframes, revision, and decision-making. Detailed report criteria belong in the Reviewer Guidelines.

2. Content Subject to Peer Review

Original research articles, review articles, case studies, methodological papers, and other manuscripts that make scholarly claims are normally subject to external peer review. Supplementary files, research instruments, data descriptions, appendices, or other materials central to the article's evidence or conclusions may also be made available to reviewers.

Editorials, announcements, corrigenda, retraction or removal notices, obituaries, invited introductions, and other content that does not report original research may receive editorial assessment rather than external peer review. Where content follows a process that differs from the journal's standard model, the published item should identify the review route or article type transparently.

Special-issue and guest-edited manuscripts are subject to the same quality, independence, conflict-of-interest, and peer-review standards as regular submissions. The Editor-in-Chief retains oversight and final responsibility.

3. Peer-Review Workflow

4. Initial Editorial Screening

A manuscript may be rejected without external review when it:

• falls outside the journal's focus and scope or is unsuitable for its readership;
• does not meet minimum standards of originality, scholarly contribution, evidence, method, reporting, or language comprehensibility;
• contains major ethical, legal, authorship, data-integrity, copyright, or publication-integrity concerns;
• is incomplete or does not follow essential submission requirements after an opportunity to correct technical deficiencies; or
• is unlikely to become publishable through a reasonable revision process.

A desk rejection is an editorial decision, not a peer-review report. The decision communication should provide the principal reason sufficiently clearly for the author to understand the outcome.

5. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Reviewers are selected according to subject expertise, methodological competence, relevant scholarly or professional experience, review quality, availability, and independence. The editor considers institutional, collaborative, supervisory, financial, personal, competitive, and other relationships that could affect impartiality.

• Reviewers should not be selected solely because of seniority, reputation, nationality, or personal familiarity with an editor.
• The journal seeks an appropriate balance of subject, methodological, institutional, geographic, and career-stage perspectives where practicable.
• An editor, editorial-board member, or guest editor may not review a submission they are handling as the decision editor.
• Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but the journal is not required to invite them and independently verifies suitability and conflicts.
• Reasonable requests to exclude a reviewer may be considered when supported by a specific conflict or other credible concern; the final choice remains with the editor.

A reviewer must disclose a possible competing interest before accepting or as soon as it becomes known. Detailed definitions and handling belong in the journal's Conflict of Interest Policy.

6. Anonymity and Confidentiality

In the double-anonymized model, reviewer identities are concealed from authors, and author identities are concealed from reviewers. Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, identifying self-references, file properties, and other unnecessary identifiers from the review file. The editorial office may return inadequately anonymized files for correction.

The journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity but cannot guarantee that a reviewer will be unable to infer an author's identity from the topic, citations, data, preprint, repository, conference presentation, or other public information. Reviewers must not attempt to identify or contact authors.

Manuscripts, supplementary files, reports, correspondence, and unpublished information are confidential. A reviewer must not share or delegate a review, involve a co-reviewer, upload manuscript content to an external service, or use unpublished material without prior permission from the editor. Any permitted co-reviewer must be named to the editor and must accept the same obligations.

7. Review Criteria and Reports

Reviewers provide a reasoned assessment addressing, as relevant:

• fit with the journal's scope and contribution to the field;
• clarity of the research problem, objective, question, or scholarly argument;
• originality and positioning in relation to relevant literature;
• appropriateness, transparency, and reproducibility of methods;
• accuracy and clarity of analysis, results, tables, figures, and interpretation;
• whether conclusions are supported by the evidence and limitations are addressed;
• ethical approval, consent, reporting, data, authorship, citation, or integrity concerns; and
• clarity, organization, and readability sufficient for scholarly evaluation.

Reviewers should separate confidential comments to the editor from comments intended for the authors. Recommendations must be supported by reasons and should be consistent with the substance of the report. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, coercive citation, requests intended primarily to increase the reviewer's citations, and demands for irrelevant changes are prohibited.

Reviewers are not expected to copyedit the manuscript or rewrite it for the authors. They may identify language or presentation problems that materially affect assessment. Detailed questions and report structure are provided in the Reviewer Guidelines.

8. Indicative Timeframes

The following periods are service targets, not guarantees. Actual times depend on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number and quality of revisions, and ethical or methodological questions.

Authors may request a reasonable extension before the revision deadline. The journal should inform authors of a material delay and provide an updated expectation. Where a delay becomes excessive, authors may request withdrawal under the journal's published withdrawal procedure.

9. Editorial Decisions

The editor does not decide solely by majority vote. When reports conflict materially, are incomplete, or raise different areas of expertise, the editor may assess the reasoning, seek clarification, obtain an additional report, consult a methodological or ethical adviser, or make a documented editorial judgment.

An invitation to revise is not a promise of acceptance. An ordinary editorial decision concludes the current review stage, but an author may submit a procedural or ethical appeal on valid grounds under the journal's Appeals and Complaints Policy.

10. Revision and Re-Review

A revised submission must normally include:

• a clean revised manuscript;
• a version in which changes are visible when requested;
• a point-by-point response quoting or identifying each reviewer and editor comment;
• the location of each change and a reasoned explanation when a recommendation was not followed; and
• updated declarations, data, approvals, or supplementary files when the revision affects them.

Editors may return an incomplete response without further review. Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the original reviewers, new reviewers, or the editor depending on the extent and nature of the changes. Reviewers see only the material necessary for the assigned evaluation and remain bound by confidentiality.

11. Reviewer Conduct, Integrity, and AI Tools

Reviewers must follow the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and COPE-aligned ethical standards. They must disclose conflicts, maintain confidentiality, provide objective and respectful reports, avoid misuse of privileged information, and notify the editor of suspected misconduct through confidential channels.

A manuscript must not be uploaded to a public or third-party generative-AI system when doing so could disclose confidential material. Any permitted assistive or generative-AI use, disclosure requirement, and accountability rule is governed by the journal's Generative AI Policy. An AI system cannot be a reviewer and cannot assume responsibility for a report.

Suspected review manipulation, fabricated identities, undisclosed review delegation, impersonation, confidentiality breaches, appropriation of ideas or data, citation coercion, or abusive conduct will be assessed under the Publication Ethics and Appeals and Complaints policies. The journal may discontinue the review, replace the reviewer, correct the record, notify an institution, or take another proportionate action.

12. Reviewer Recognition and Applications

Reviewers serve voluntarily and do not receive financial payment. The journal may provide a certificate, acknowledgement, or service record when requested and permitted by its procedures. Public acknowledgement of a reviewer's service must not identify the manuscript reviewed and should be made only with the reviewer's consent.

A person seeking appointment as a reviewer should normally demonstrate:

• expertise relevant to one or more areas in the journal's Focus and Scope;
• an appropriate academic, research, professional, or methodological record;
• the ability to provide timely, constructive, evidence-based assessments in English or another accepted language;
• a verifiable institutional affiliation and scholarly identifier or profile where available; and
• agreement to the journal's confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, ethics, and AI requirements.

Applications may be sent through the official journal contact page or to jurnaldehasen@unived.ac.id. Submission of an application does not guarantee appointment. The editorial office verifies suitability and may invite a reviewer according to manuscript needs.

13. Relationship with Other Journal Policies