Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

JPL: Jurnal Pengabdian Leuser applies a double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of all manuscripts submitted for publication.

The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Manuscripts are evaluated based on their academic quality, relevance to the journal's focus and scope, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, originality, community engagement, and significance of the reported outcomes.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first examined by the Editorial Team to determine whether they meet the journal's basic requirements and scope.

The initial screening includes:

  • Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;

  • Compliance with the Author Guidelines;

  • Completeness of the manuscript and submission metadata;

  • Quality and clarity of presentation;

  • Originality and similarity checking; and

  • Compliance with publication ethics and research ethics requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before entering the peer-review stage.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and knowledge of the relevant field. The journal seeks to avoid conflicts of interest between reviewers and authors.

3. Double-Blind Review

JPL: Jurnal Pengabdian Leuser uses a double-blind review system, in which:

  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors; and

  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments of the submitted manuscript.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally asked to evaluate the following aspects:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  • Originality and contribution;

  • Identification and significance of the community problem;

  • Appropriateness of the community service methodology;

  • Clarity of implementation procedures;

  • Level of community participation;

  • Quality of outputs and measurable outcomes;

  • Evidence of impact and benefits to the community;

  • Sustainability or follow-up potential;

  • Quality of discussion and interpretation;

  • Quality and relevance of references;

  • Organization and clarity of the manuscript; and

  • Compliance with publication and research ethics.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the Editor's evaluation, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept — The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or only minor editorial corrections.

  • Minor Revision — The manuscript requires limited revisions before publication.

  • Major Revision — Substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

  • Reject — The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is unsuitable for publication.

The final publication decision is made by the Editor based on the overall quality of the manuscript, reviewer comments, and the journal's editorial policies. A reviewer's recommendation is advisory and does not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' and editors' comments. Authors should provide a clear response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be reviewed again when necessary to determine whether the required revisions have been adequately implemented.

7. Final Acceptance and Publication

After the manuscript has successfully completed the review and revision process, the Editor provides the final acceptance decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed to the editorial production process, including copyediting, proofreading, formatting, and publication.

8. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose, copy, use, or distribute unpublished manuscript content for purposes unrelated to the review process.

Reviewers must also declare any potential conflict of interest and should decline the review when their impartiality may reasonably be affected.

9. Review Timeline

The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the volume of submissions. The Editorial Team makes reasonable efforts to ensure that manuscripts are processed efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review.

10. Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals should provide clear and substantive reasons, particularly when the author believes that significant factual or procedural errors occurred during the review process.

Appeals are considered by the Editor in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and publication ethics principles.

JPL: Jurnal Pengabdian Leuser is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, confidential, and rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality and integrity of published community engagement research.