Peer Review Process

JIMAT
Peer Review Process Proses Peer Review
Journal of Information Management and Technology

JIMAT: Journal of Information Management and Technology applies a structured peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, validity of findings, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts considered for publication. Submission, editorial screening, peer review, revision, and editorial decisions are conducted through Open Journal Systems (OJS) to maintain a transparent and traceable editorial record.

Double-Blind Peer Review

JIMAT applies a double-blind peer-review model. Authors' identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors during the review process. Authors are required to remove identifying information from the review manuscript whenever required by the journal system or editorial team.

Publication Frequency and Editorial Scheduling

JIMAT publishes three regular issues per year, in April (Issue 1), August (Issue 2), and December (Issue 3). Manuscripts may be submitted throughout the year. All submissions are evaluated under the same editorial and double-blind peer-review standards, regardless of the intended issue.

ISSUE 1
April
ISSUE 2
August
ISSUE 3
December

Acceptance and issue assignment depend on the completion of peer review, revisions, editorial assessment, and production readiness. Submission does not guarantee acceptance or publication in a particular issue.

Review Workflow
1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each manuscript is initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor. The screening covers relevance to the Focus and Scope, administrative completeness, compliance with the Author Guidelines, initial scholarly quality, similarity screening, and publication ethics.

2. Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, scientifically inadequate, substantially inconsistent with the journal's requirements, or affected by serious publication-ethics concerns may be declined before external peer review.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to two independent reviewers with relevant scholarly expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject competence, scholarly track record, disciplinary relevance, independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

4. Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and provide constructive, evidence-based comments and recommendations. The review focuses on the scientific merit, methodological quality, validity of analysis, contribution, and overall publication suitability.

5. Author Revision

Where revisions are required, authors are expected to respond carefully to reviewer and editor comments and submit a revised manuscript through OJS. Substantive revisions may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.

6. Editorial Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after considering manuscript quality, reviewer recommendations, the adequacy of author revisions, journal policies, and editorial integrity.

Reviewer Assessment Criteria

Reviewer assessment should address the following core aspects:

Originality & Contribution
Originality, significance, and scholarly contribution.
Research Objectives
Clarity of research objectives or research questions.
Research Design
Appropriateness of research design and methods.
Data Analysis
Adequacy, validity, and appropriateness of data analysis.
Discussion
Depth of interpretation and engagement with relevant literature.
References
Relevance, recency, adequacy, and scholarly quality of references.
Findings & Conclusion
Consistency between findings, interpretation, and conclusions.
Research Integrity
Compliance with research ethics and publication integrity.
Possible Review Recommendations
Accepted
Minor Revisions
Major Revisions
Resubmit for Review
Declined / Rejected

Where the recommendations of the two reviewers differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification from the reviewers, conduct additional editorial assessment, or appoint an additional independent reviewer where necessary before reaching a final decision.

Confidentiality and Use of Generative AI

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process. Manuscripts, datasets, supplementary files, review materials, and other confidential information must not be uploaded to Generative AI services or other unauthorized third-party systems. Scientific peer review must be performed by the assigned reviewer and may not be delegated to AI.

JIMAT: Journal of Information Management and Technology menerapkan proses peer review yang terstruktur untuk memastikan mutu ilmiah, relevansi, orisinalitas, ketepatan metodologis, validitas temuan, dan kontribusi akademik dari setiap naskah yang dipertimbangkan untuk diterbitkan. Submission, editorial screening, peer review, revisi, dan keputusan editorial dilaksanakan melalui Open Journal Systems (OJS) sehingga seluruh proses editorial memiliki rekam jejak yang transparan dan dapat ditelusuri.

Double-Blind Peer Review

JIMAT menerapkan sistem double-blind peer review. Identitas penulis tidak disampaikan kepada reviewer dan identitas reviewer tidak disampaikan kepada penulis selama proses review. Penulis wajib menghapus informasi yang dapat mengidentifikasi penulis dari naskah review apabila diminta oleh sistem atau editor.

Frekuensi Penerbitan dan Penjadwalan Editorial

JIMAT menerbitkan tiga nomor reguler dalam satu tahun, yaitu April (Nomor 1), Agustus (Nomor 2), dan Desember (Nomor 3). Naskah dapat dikirimkan sepanjang tahun. Semua naskah mengikuti standar editorial dan double-blind peer review yang sama, tanpa membedakan nomor terbit yang dituju.

NOMOR 1
April
NOMOR 2
Agustus
NOMOR 3
Desember

Penerimaan dan penempatan naskah dalam nomor terbit bergantung pada penyelesaian peer review, revisi, penilaian editorial, dan kesiapan produksi. Pengiriman naskah tidak menjamin penerimaan ataupun penerbitan pada nomor tertentu.

Alur Peer Review
1. Editorial Screening Awal

Setiap naskah terlebih dahulu diperiksa oleh Editor-in-Chief atau editor yang ditugaskan. Pemeriksaan mencakup kesesuaian dengan Focus and Scope, kelengkapan administrasi, kepatuhan terhadap Author Guidelines, mutu ilmiah awal, similarity screening, dan etika publikasi.

2. Penilaian Editorial

Naskah yang berada di luar ruang lingkup jurnal, tidak memenuhi kelayakan ilmiah awal, tidak sesuai secara substansial dengan ketentuan jurnal, atau memiliki masalah serius terkait etika publikasi dapat ditolak sebelum memasuki proses review eksternal.

3. Penugasan Reviewer

Naskah yang lolos screening awal dikirim kepada dua reviewer independen dengan keahlian yang relevan. Reviewer dipilih berdasarkan kompetensi bidang, rekam jejak ilmiah, relevansi disiplin, independensi, dan tidak adanya konflik kepentingan.

4. Proses Review

Reviewer melakukan evaluasi secara independen serta memberikan komentar dan rekomendasi yang konstruktif dan berbasis bukti. Penilaian difokuskan pada mutu ilmiah, ketepatan metodologi, validitas analisis, kontribusi penelitian, dan kelayakan publikasi secara keseluruhan.

5. Revisi oleh Penulis

Apabila revisi diperlukan, penulis harus menanggapi komentar reviewer dan editor secara cermat serta mengirimkan naskah revisi melalui OJS. Revisi substantif dapat dikirim kembali kepada reviewer untuk evaluasi lanjutan.

6. Keputusan Editorial

Keputusan akhir penerbitan ditetapkan oleh Editor-in-Chief dengan mempertimbangkan mutu naskah, rekomendasi reviewer, kecukupan revisi penulis, kebijakan jurnal, serta integritas editorial.

Kriteria Penilaian Reviewer

Penilaian reviewer sekurang-kurangnya mencakup aspek berikut:

Orisinalitas & Kontribusi
Orisinalitas, signifikansi, dan kontribusi ilmiah penelitian.
Tujuan Penelitian
Kejelasan tujuan atau pertanyaan penelitian.
Desain Penelitian
Kesesuaian desain penelitian dan metode yang digunakan.
Analisis Data
Kecukupan, validitas, dan ketepatan analisis data.
Pembahasan
Kedalaman interpretasi dan keterkaitan dengan literatur relevan.
Referensi
Relevansi, kemutakhiran, kecukupan, dan kualitas sumber rujukan.
Temuan & Kesimpulan
Konsistensi antara hasil, interpretasi, dan kesimpulan.
Integritas Penelitian
Kepatuhan terhadap etika penelitian dan integritas publikasi.
Rekomendasi Hasil Review
Accepted
Minor Revisions
Major Revisions
Resubmit for Review
Declined / Rejected

Apabila rekomendasi dari kedua reviewer berbeda secara substansial, editor dapat meminta klarifikasi, melakukan penilaian editorial tambahan, atau menunjuk reviewer independen tambahan apabila diperlukan sebelum keputusan akhir ditetapkan.

Kerahasiaan dan Penggunaan Generative AI

Reviewer wajib menjaga kerahasiaan seluruh proses review. Naskah, dataset, file tambahan, bahan review, maupun informasi rahasia lainnya tidak boleh diunggah ke layanan Generative AI atau sistem pihak ketiga yang tidak berwenang. Penilaian ilmiah harus dilakukan sendiri oleh reviewer yang ditugaskan dan tidak boleh dialihkan kepada AI.