Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process — Al-Khadim: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat

All manuscripts submitted to Al-Khadim: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure academic quality, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope. This process involves independent evaluation by experts who provide constructive feedback to improve the clarity, validity, and contribution of the manuscript.

1) Initial Editorial Screening

• Each submitted manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial office to ensure compliance with the journal’s focus, scope, and formatting requirements.
• Manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using Turnitin or equivalent software prior to peer review.
• Submissions that do not meet the minimum standards or contain ethical issues will be returned to the author(s) for correction or rejected outright.

2) Reviewer Assignment

• Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.
• Reviewers are selected based on their academic background, publication record, and familiarity with the manuscript topic.
• The journal employs a double-blind review system, ensuring that both author and reviewer identities remain anonymous throughout the process.

3) Review Process and Criteria

• Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
  • Originality and contribution to knowledge or community practice
  • Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope
  • Soundness of methodology and analysis
  • Clarity, organization, and academic writing quality
  • Ethical standards and citation practices
• Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations to help authors improve their manuscripts.
• Typical recommendations include: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

4) Editorial Decision and Revision Process

• The editorial team reviews the feedback from reviewers and makes a decision based on the overall evaluation.
• Authors receiving revision requests must respond to each reviewer comment and submit the revised version within the specified deadline.
• Revised manuscripts may undergo additional review rounds if substantial changes are made.
• The final decision — acceptance or rejection — rests with the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers’ recommendations and editorial judgment.

5) Review Duration and Publication Timeline

• The average duration of the peer review process is 4 to 8 weeks, depending on the manuscript’s complexity and reviewer availability.
• Authors are notified promptly regarding any delays or additional steps required during the review process.
• Accepted articles proceed to the copyediting, layout, and DOI registration stages before publication.

6) Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

• All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents throughout the review and publication process.
• Reviewers must not use or disclose any part of the manuscript prior to publication.
• The review process follows the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure fairness and transparency.