PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas

1. General Peer Review Policy

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific quality, academic integrity, transparency, and objectivity through a rigorous and independent peer review process.

All research manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial screening followed by a peer review process to assess their originality, scientific contribution, methodological validity, technical quality, and relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.

Each manuscript that proceeds to external peer review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, reviewer evaluations, publication ethics, and the journal's editorial standards.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After manuscript submission through the Online Journal Systems (OJS) platform, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic publication requirements.

The screening process includes an assessment of:

Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
Compliance with manuscript formatting and submission guidelines.
Originality and potential scientific contribution.
Clarity of research objectives and methodology.
Completeness of manuscript structure and metadata.
Appropriate citations and references.
Potential plagiarism and excessive textual similarity.
Compliance with publication ethics and authorship requirements.
Readability and academic language quality.
Suitability for further scientific evaluation.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal's minimum requirements may be returned to authors for technical corrections or rejected without external peer review.

The initial screening decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

3. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers based on their academic expertise, research experience, and relevance to the submitted topic.

Reviewers are selected according to the following considerations:

Expertise in the manuscript's research field.
Relevant scientific publications and research experience.
Ability to conduct an objective and constructive evaluation.
Independence from the authors and the submitted research.
Absence of significant conflicts of interest.
Availability to complete the review within the requested period.

The editorial team aims to assign at least two reviewers to each manuscript.

Additional reviewers may be invited when the manuscript requires specialized expertise or when reviewer recommendations substantially differ.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas implements a double-blind peer review process to reduce potential bias and maintain fairness.

Under this system:

Reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities.
Authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscript content.
Authors must prepare anonymized review manuscripts.
Editors must protect confidential reviewer and author information.

Authors must remove identifying information from the review manuscript, including author names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, and document properties that may reveal their identities.

Self-citations should be written in a neutral manner without unnecessarily revealing authorship.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to maintain anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed.

5. Peer Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using scientific and technical criteria appropriate to the type of article submitted.

5.1. Originality and Scientific Contribution

Reviewers assess whether the manuscript presents original findings, methodological improvements, new computational approaches, or meaningful scientific insights.

The manuscript should clearly identify the research gap and explain its contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

5.2. Relevance to the Journal

The manuscript must demonstrate a clear relationship to intelligent systems, artificial intelligence, machine learning, computational intelligence, or related technologies.

Interdisciplinary research is considered when it provides a meaningful contribution to intelligent computing.

5.3. Research Methodology

Reviewers examine the appropriateness, clarity, and reproducibility of the research methods.

For computational research, this may include evaluating algorithm design, experimental configurations, dataset characteristics, validation strategies, and performance measurement procedures.

5.4. Results and Scientific Discussion

Research findings must be clearly presented and supported by appropriate scientific evidence.

Reviewers assess whether the results adequately address the research objectives and whether the discussion provides meaningful interpretation and comparison with previous studies.

5.5. Technical Validity and Experimental Evaluation

For artificial intelligence and machine learning studies, reviewers may evaluate:

Dataset quality and representativeness.
Training, validation, and testing procedures.
Appropriate baseline models.
Performance evaluation metrics.
Statistical significance and uncertainty analysis, where applicable.
Model robustness and generalization.
Reproducibility of computational experiments.
Computational efficiency and practical limitations.

Comparative and ablation experiments may be expected when necessary to substantiate the claimed contribution.

5.6. Quality of Scientific Writing

Reviewers evaluate manuscript organization, academic language, clarity of explanations, consistency of terminology, quality of figures and tables, and accuracy of references.

5.7. Research Ethics

Reviewers are expected to report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, inappropriate citations, or other potential ethical concerns to the editorial team.

Reviewers should communicate such concerns confidentially and avoid making unsupported allegations.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing their evaluations, reviewers submit comments and recommendations through the OJS platform.

The journal recognizes the following general recommendations:

Accept Submission

The manuscript meets the journal's scientific and publication standards and requires no substantive revision.

Revisions Required

The manuscript has publication potential but requires corrections, clarification, additional analysis, or improvements before acceptance.

Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires substantial revision and further scientific evaluation before an editorial decision can be reached.

Decline Submission

The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial requirements.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the responsible editor.

7. Editorial Decision-Making

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor evaluates reviewer reports and determines the editorial decision.

When reviewer recommendations differ, the editor may:

Examine the scientific arguments presented by each reviewer.
Request clarification from the reviewers.
Invite an additional independent reviewer.
Request further revisions from the authors.
Make a reasoned editorial decision based on the available evidence.

Editorial decisions must be independent of authors' institutional affiliations, academic positions, financial considerations, or personal relationships.

The Article Processing Charge does not influence reviewer recommendations or editorial decisions.

8. Manuscript Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests must address reviewer comments carefully and systematically.

A revised submission should include:

A revised manuscript reflecting the requested improvements.
A point-by-point response to each reviewer comment.
A clear explanation of the changes made.
Scientific justification for any reviewer suggestions that were not adopted.
Additional supporting evidence, analyses, or documentation when requested.

Authors should identify substantial changes in the revised manuscript when required by the editorial team.

The editor may assess the revised manuscript directly or return it to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

More than one revision round may be required before a final decision is reached.

9. Peer Review Timeline

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas aims to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining scientific rigor.

The following timeframes are recommended editorial targets:

Editorial Stage	Target Duration
Initial Editorial Screening	1–2 weeks
Reviewer Invitation and Assignment	1 week
First-Round Peer Review	2–4 weeks
Author Revision	2–4 weeks
Re-evaluation of Revised Manuscript	1–3 weeks
Final Editorial Decision	Following completion of the required evaluation

These durations are indicative targets rather than guaranteed processing times.

The actual review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the number of review rounds.

Authors can monitor manuscript status through the OJS author dashboard.

10. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of Jurnal Sistem Cerdas.

Reviewers are expected to:

Conduct objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
Maintain confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts.
Disclose potential conflicts of interest before accepting review assignments.
Complete reviews within the agreed period.
Provide clear and actionable recommendations.
Evaluate research methods and findings fairly.
Avoid discriminatory, hostile, or inappropriate comments.
Report suspected ethical concerns to the editorial team.
Avoid using unpublished manuscript content for personal advantage.
Respect the journal's policies regarding the use of artificial intelligence tools during peer review.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished research data to third-party generative AI services without explicit authorization from the journal and appropriate safeguards.

11. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for ensuring that the review process is fair, confidential, transparent, and scientifically rigorous.

Editorial responsibilities include selecting qualified reviewers, managing conflicts of interest, monitoring review progress, evaluating reviewer recommendations, and communicating decisions to authors.

Editors must refrain from handling manuscripts where personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationships could compromise their impartiality.

When conflicts of interest occur, the manuscript should be assigned to another qualified editor.

12. Confidentiality and Research Integrity

All submitted manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents throughout the editorial and peer review process.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished manuscript content without appropriate authorization.

The journal is committed to protecting intellectual property rights and ensuring the ethical handling of research information.

Potential violations of publication ethics will be evaluated according to the journal's editorial policies and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

13. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe an editorial decision was based on a substantial misunderstanding, factual error, procedural irregularity, or potential conflict of interest may submit a formal appeal.

An appeal should include:

The manuscript identification number.
The editorial decision being appealed.
A clear explanation of the grounds for appeal.
Supporting scientific evidence or documentation.

The appeal will be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor where appropriate.

An appeal does not automatically guarantee reconsideration, further review, or acceptance.

Complaints regarding reviewer conduct, editorial procedures, or publication ethics may be submitted through the journal's official communication channels.

14. Final Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript may be accepted for publication when it has satisfied the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements.

Following acceptance, the manuscript enters the publication production process, which may include copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, metadata verification, and final publication approval.

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas applies an Article Processing Charge (APC) of IDR 500,000 per accepted article.

Payment is requested only after formal acceptance and does not influence the evaluation or peer review process.

Accepted manuscripts are scheduled for publication in the journal's regular issues, published in April, August, and December.

15. Commitment to Peer Review Quality

Jurnal Sistem Cerdas is committed to continuously improving the quality, fairness, efficiency, and transparency of its peer review practices.

The journal encourages constructive scientific dialogue between authors, reviewers, and editors to strengthen the validity and significance of published research.

Through independent and rigorous peer review, Jurnal Sistem Cerdas aims to disseminate reliable scientific knowledge and contribute to the advancement of intelligent systems and computational technologies.

16. Reference to Publication Ethics Guidelines

The journal's peer review principles are informed by recognized scholarly publishing guidance, including:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

https://publicationethics.org/

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

All editorial participants are expected to comply with the journal's Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics, Authorship Criteria, and related editorial policies.