Peer Review Process
Ardi Pengabdian Masyarakat is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and transparency through a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated objectively based on their scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, and contribution to community empowerment.
The identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to ensure an impartial and unbiased evaluation.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether it:
- Falls within the journal's focus and scope.
- Complies with the journal's author guidelines and formatting requirements.
- Meets publication ethics standards.
- Demonstrates sufficient academic quality and originality.
- Successfully passes plagiarism screening.
Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external review.
Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject area of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected based on:
- Academic expertise.
- Research and publication experience.
- Absence of conflicts of interest.
- Availability to complete the review within the specified timeframe.
Double-Blind Peer Review
Ardi Pengabdian Masyarakat employs a Double-Blind Peer Review system, whereby:
- Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
- Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
This review model promotes fairness, objectivity, confidentiality, and academic independence.
Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
- Originality and novelty of the community service program.
- Significance and practical contribution to society.
- Clarity of the problem statement and objectives.
- Appropriateness of the implementation methodology.
- Community participation and stakeholder engagement.
- Measurable outcomes and community impact.
- Sustainability and replicability of the program.
- Quality of data presentation and discussion.
- Compliance with publication ethics.
- Organization, clarity, and quality of academic writing.
- Accuracy and adequacy of references.
Review Recommendations
Based on their evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
- Accept – The manuscript is accepted without revision.
- Minor Revision – Minor revisions are required before acceptance.
- Major Revision – Substantial revisions are required, followed by further evaluation.
- Reject – The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.
Revision Process
Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with reviewers' comments and submit:
- A revised manuscript.
- A detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
Final Editorial Decision
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration:
- Reviewers' recommendations.
- Scientific quality of the manuscript.
- Compliance with publication ethics.
- Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to accept or reject a manuscript based on the overall editorial assessment.
Confidentiality
Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts received for review.
Unpublished manuscripts, data, ideas, or findings obtained during the review process must not be disclosed, shared, or used for personal research or professional advantage without the authors' explicit written permission.
Conflict of Interest
Editors and reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
Individuals with conflicts of interest shall withdraw from the review process to preserve the integrity and impartiality of editorial decisions.
Ethical Review Principles
Reviewers are expected to:
- Conduct reviews objectively and constructively.
- Provide evidence-based recommendations.
- Respect confidentiality.
- Identify relevant literature that has not been cited.
- Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, or other forms of publication misconduct.
- Complete reviews within the agreed review period.
Review Timeline
The journal strives to complete the peer-review process in a timely manner.
| Review Stage | Estimated Time |
|---|---|
| Initial Editorial Screening | 3–7 days |
| Reviewer Assignment | 2–5 days |
| Double-Blind Peer Review | 2–4 weeks |
| Author Revision | 1–3 weeks |
| Final Editorial Decision | 3–7 days |
The review duration may vary depending on the availability of reviewers, the quality of the submitted manuscript, and the responsiveness of the authors during the revision process.
Peer Review Workflow
Manuscript Submission → Initial Editorial Screening → Plagiarism Screening → Reviewer Assignment → Double-Blind Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Author Revision (if required) → Final Acceptance → Copyediting and Layout Editing → Online Publication
Commitment to Quality
Jurnal Ardi Pengabdian Masyarakat is committed to implementing a fair, transparent, independent, and ethical peer-review process in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices. Editorial decisions are based exclusively on the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, and contribution of the manuscript to community empowerment, without discrimination based on nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs.
