Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Jurnal Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Madani (JPMM) implements a rigorous, transparent, and ethically grounded peer review process to ensure the academic integrity, relevance, and quality of the articles it publishes.

The journal adopts a single-blind peer review system, meaning that the reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities. This approach aims to maintain an objective evaluation while allowing reviewers to understand the authors' previous work context.

1. Preliminary Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial board to evaluate their alignment with the journal's scope, thematic relevance, academic quality, and adherence to the submission guidelines. Manuscripts that meet these criteria are assigned a unique manuscript ID and moved forward to the peer review stage.

2. Single-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the fields of community empowerment, applied economics, business, or related social sciences. To preserve the integrity of the review process:

  • The identities of the reviewers are kept strictly confidential from the authors.
  • Reviewers are instructed to provide objective, constructive, and academically grounded evaluations, free from personal bias.
  • In cases where reviewer opinions significantly diverge, an additional review may be solicited.

Review Criteria & Timeline

Reviewers are generally expected to complete their evaluations within 3 to 5 weeks. Submissions are evaluated based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty of the research question, community service method, or argument.
  • Methodological rigor and appropriateness of the approach.
  • Theoretical and practical contribution to the field of community empowerment and social welfare.
  • Clarity of structure and coherence of argumentation.
  • Relevance and accuracy of citations and references.
  • Adherence to ethical research and publication standards.

Editorial Decision and Revision

After receiving reviewers' reports, the editorial team synthesizes the feedback and makes a decision in one of the following categories:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions)
  • Reject

Authors receiving revision requests must respond comprehensively to all reviewer comments and resubmit within the specified timeframe. A revised submission may be returned to the same reviewers for re-evaluation. The final decision on publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board, based on the peer review reports, manuscript quality, and thematic alignment with the journal's scope.

Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

All participants in the review process (editors, reviewers, and editorial staff) are required to uphold strict confidentiality:

  • Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Review materials may not be shared, distributed, or discussed with unauthorized individuals.
  • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline review assignments when necessary.