Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Jurnal Riset Informatika dan Komputer (JURIKO) undergo a rigorous review process to ensure scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

JURIKO implements a Double-Blind Peer Review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to maintain objectivity, fairness, and independence in the evaluation of scholarly work.

Peer Review Stages

1. Initial Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system in accordance with the official template and author guidelines.

2. Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial assessment covering:

  • Compliance with the journal's focus and scope.
  • Adherence to author guidelines and manuscript template.
  • Completeness of author metadata.
  • Language quality and manuscript structure.
  • Similarity checking using plagiarism detection software.

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

3. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening stage are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's research topic.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and publication record within the relevant field.

4. Double-Blind Review Process

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty of the research.
  • Relevance to Informatics and Computer Science.
  • Clarity of research objectives.
  • Appropriateness of research methodology.
  • Validity of analysis and research findings.
  • Quality of discussion and conclusions.
  • Adequacy and currency of references.
  • Scientific contribution to knowledge development.

Reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers' recommendations, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept
The manuscript is accepted for publication with or without minor editorial revisions.
Minor Revision
Authors are requested to make minor improvements according to reviewers' comments within the specified period.
Major Revision
Authors are required to make substantial revisions and resubmit the manuscript for further evaluation.
Reject
The manuscript is rejected if it does not meet the journal's scientific standards or falls outside the journal's scope.

6. Revision Stage

Authors are required to:

  • Submit a revised version of the manuscript.
  • Provide a detailed Response to Reviewers document.
  • Clearly explain all revisions made in response to reviewer comments.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further assessment when necessary.

7. Final Decision

After the completion of the review and revision process, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.

8. Copyediting and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed through the following publication stages:

  • Copyediting
  • Layout Editing
  • Proofreading
  • Final Publication

Prior to publication, the corresponding author will receive the final proof version for review and approval.

Review Timeline

The estimated duration of the editorial and review process is presented below:

Stage Estimated Time
Editorial Screening 1–2 Weeks
Peer Review 2–6 Weeks
Author Revision 1–4 Weeks
Final Decision 1–2 Weeks
Production and Publication 1–2 Weeks

The overall publication process generally takes approximately 6–12 weeks, depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, and the timeliness of author revisions.