*) MIMBAR ILMU is Accredited by The Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia, which is ranked SINTA 2
Peer Review Process
Mimbar Ilmu (MI) follows a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and credibility of published articles. The journal employs a single-blind peer-review process, meaning that the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors, while the authors' identities are disclosed to the reviewers. This review system helps maintain a fair and unbiased evaluation of manuscripts while ensuring high academic standards. Each submission is assessed for originality, relevance, methodology, and contribution to the field before a final publication decision is made.
Submission and Initial Evaluation
Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the editorial team. The team assesses its relevance to the journal's scope, adherence to submission guidelines, originality (including a plagiarism check), and overall quality. Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be returned to authors for revisions or rejected outright before entering the peer-review process. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s requirements are assigned a unique identification number and moved forward in the review process.
Peer Review
This journal follows a single-blind peer-review policy, where the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors, but the authors' identities are disclosed to the reviewers. In certain cases, the editorial team may opt for a double-blind review, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous, to ensure an unbiased assessment. Authors should present their papers honestly without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or inappropriate data manipulation. Submitted papers are evaluated by anonymous referees for contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation. Papers will be sent for anonymous review by at least two reviewers who will either be members of the Editorial Board or others of similar standing in the field. The Editor aims to provide the review results within 8 weeks. However, the review duration may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. Authors will be notified if delays occur. The Editors’ decision is final. However, authors may request clarification regarding review comments or editorial decisions. Appeals may be considered if authors provide substantive reasons and evidence supporting their request. All correspondence, including notification of the Editors’ decision and requests for revisions, will be sent by email.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria:
- Scientific Quality: Is the research sound and methodologically robust?
- Originality: Does the manuscript contribute new knowledge to the field?
- Relevance: How well does the paper align with the journal's scope and objectives?
- Clarity of Presentation: Is the manuscript well-organized, clear, and comprehensible?
- Ethical Standards: Does the manuscript adhere to ethical guidelines in research, authorship, and publication?
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback, highlighting areas of improvement and suggesting ways to enhance the manuscript’s quality, clarity, and contribution to the field.
Review Duration
MI strives to provide timely and efficient peer review. Reviewers are typically given a specific timeframe to complete their evaluations. Authors will be informed of the review process's estimated duration during the initial submission or after any significant revisions.
Decision and Revision
Upon receiving the reviewers' feedback, the editorial team evaluates the reviewers' comments and suggestions. Based on this, authors will be informed of the decision regarding their manuscript. The possible decisions include:
- Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted as is.
- Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small revisions before acceptance.
- Major Revisions: Substantial changes are needed before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
- Rejection: The manuscript does not meet the required standards or relevance for publication.
If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewers' comments thoroughly and resubmit the revised manuscript within 2 to 4 weeks for minor revisions and 4 to 8 weeks for major revisions. Revised manuscripts may be subject to further review, depending on the extent of changes made.
Editorial Decision
The final decision regarding the publication of a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial board members, taking into account the reviewers' assessments. In cases where there is a significant discrepancy among reviewer recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may seek an additional review or make an independent judgment. Manuscripts may also receive a conditional acceptance, requiring mandatory revisions before final approval. They consider the reviewers' assessments, the manuscript's originality, its contribution to the field, its relevance to the journal's scope, and its compliance with ethical guidelines. This process ensures that only the highest quality and most relevant research is published in MI.
Confidentiality
MI maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer-review process. Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts and their contents as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share or discuss the manuscripts with anyone outside the peer-review process.
Review Process Improvement
MI is committed to continuously improving its peer-review process. Feedback from authors and reviewers is highly valued and used to enhance the efficiency, fairness, and transparency of the review system. The journal welcomes constructive suggestions that contribute to improving the quality and integrity of the peer-review process.
