Peer Review Process

Mitra Teras: Jurnal Terapan Pengabdian Masyarakat uses a blind peer review process. The identity of the reviewers is not shared with the authors. Every manuscript that passes the initial check is reviewed by at least three independent reviewers. The Chief Editor makes the final decision.

1. Initial Check

After submission, the editorial team checks each manuscript for:

  • fit with the journal's Aims and Scope;
  • compliance with the Author Guidelines and the article template;
  • similarity with other published work, using Turnitin. See our Plagiarism Policy;
  • required declarations (Funding, Conflict of Interest, Author Contributions, and Use of AI Tools) and community engagement ethics.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without review (desk rejection). The editor explains the reason to the authors.

2. Selection of Reviewers

The editor invites at least three reviewers who:

  • have expertise in the topic of the manuscript;
  • do not work at the same institution as any of the authors;
  • have not worked or published with any of the authors in the last three years;
  • have no other conflict of interest with the manuscript. See our Conflict of Interest policy.

Reviewers come from different institutions and countries. The list of reviewers is available on the Reviewer Team page.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:

  • originality and relevance to community engagement;
  • clarity of the community problem and the profile of the community partner;
  • suitability of the methods of implementation;
  • quality of the results and evaluation, including how the impact on the community is measured;
  • whether the conclusions are supported by the data;
  • ethics of the community engagement;
  • quality of the writing and references.

Reviewers give one of the following recommendations: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Decline.

4. Review Time

  • Reviewers are given four weeks to review a new manuscript.
  • Reviewers are given two week to review a revised manuscript.
  • Reviewers can ask the editor for more time if needed.

5. Editorial Decision

The editor considers all reviewer reports and makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: the manuscript is accepted without further changes.
  • Revisions required: the authors revise the manuscript based on the comments. Revised manuscripts with major revisions may be sent back to the reviewers.
  • Decline: the manuscript is not accepted for publication.

If the reviewers give very different recommendations, the editor may invite an additional reviewer. The editor's decision is based only on the quality of the manuscript and the reviewer reports. Payment or waiver of the article processing charge does not affect the decision.

6. Revision

Authors should submit the revised manuscript with a response letter that explains how each comment was addressed. Changes in the manuscript should be highlighted. The process can include more than one round of review until the manuscript meets the journal's standards.

7. Review Steps

  1. Submission: the author submits the manuscript through the online system.
  2. Initial check: the editorial team checks scope, format, similarity, and declarations.
  3. Peer review: at least three reviewers assess the manuscript in a blind process.
  4. First decision: the editor decides to accept, request revisions, or decline.
  5. Revision: the author revises the manuscript and sends a response letter.
  6. Re-review (if needed): the revised manuscript is sent back to the reviewers.
  7. Final decision: the Chief Editor makes the final decision.
  8. Production: accepted manuscripts go through copyediting, layout, proofreading by the authors, and publication.

8. Confidentiality and Use of AI Tools

  • Reviewers and editors must keep all manuscripts confidential.
  • Reviewers must not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT or Gemini), and must not use these tools to write their review. The review must be the reviewer's own work.
  • Editors must not use generative AI tools to assess manuscripts or make decisions.

9. Manuscripts by Editors and Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted by editors, reviewers, or publisher staff go through the same peer review process. They are handled by an editor who has no conflict of interest, and the author has no access to the review of their own manuscript.

10. Appeals

Authors who believe a decision was not fair may send an appeal to the Chief Editor at mawaidi@uny.ac.id within 30 days after the decision. The appeal must explain the reasons clearly. The Chief Editor, or another editor with no conflict of interest, will look at the case and may ask for an additional review. The decision on the appeal is final.