Peer Review Process

Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Permata Indonesia (JPMPI)

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team to determine whether they meet the journal's focus and scope, submission requirements, manuscript structure, originality, and basic academic and ethical standards.

The editorial team may return a manuscript to the authors for technical corrections or reject it at this stage if it is outside the journal's scope, does not meet the minimum requirements, or contains significant deficiencies.

2. Similarity and Originality Check

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening may be checked for similarity using an appropriate plagiarism or similarity detection system. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts are original and properly acknowledge all sources.

Manuscripts containing unacceptable levels of similarity or evidence of plagiarism may be rejected or returned to the authors for clarification and revision in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who have relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, publication experience, and suitability for evaluating the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting an assignment.

4. Double-Blind Review

JPMPI uses a double-blind review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:

• relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

• originality and significance of the community service program;

• clarity of the identified community problem or need;

• appropriateness of the intervention and implementation methods;

• level of community participation and engagement;

• adequacy of program evaluation and measurable outcomes;

• contribution and potential impact on the community;

• sustainability or potential for wider application;

• clarity and consistency of the manuscript;

• ethical considerations; and

• adequacy and relevance of references.

5. Review Recommendations

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept Submission

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Resubmit for Review

• Reject Submission

The Editor may request additional review when the reviewers' recommendations are substantially different or when further expert assessment is required.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the Editor. Authors are expected to address all reviewer comments carefully and provide a clear response explaining the revisions made.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial revisions are required.

7. Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Editor based on the reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the revised manuscript, the relevance of the manuscript to the journal, and the journal's editorial standards.

Acceptance by the reviewers does not automatically guarantee publication. The Editor retains the final authority regarding publication.

8. Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo final editorial preparation, including copyediting, layout, proofreading, and metadata verification before publication. Authors may be asked to review the final proofs and confirm that the published version accurately represents their work.

JPMPI is committed to conducting the peer review process in a fair, objective, confidential, transparent, and timely manner, while maintaining high standards of academic integrity and publication ethics.