Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Suaka Insan Mengabdi (JSIM) must follow focus and scope, and author guidelines of this journal. The submitted manuscripts must address scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism contents. All authors are suggested to use plagiarism detection software to do the similarity checking. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal by using a recommended software.
All manuscripts will be subject to editorial review and double-blind peer reviews. Papers that do not meet the criteria for inclusion or are otherwise inappropriate will be rejected without external review. Manuscripts judged to be appropriate for inclusion in Jurnal Suaka Insan Mengabdi (JSIM) are sent for formal review. Typically, two experts review each paper; however, a paper may be subjected to more advanced scrutiny if more specialized advice is needed in regard to statistics or techniques. Based on the reviewers’ comments, the editors will then accept or reject the papers with the following conditions: (1) accept and publish, with or without editorial revisions; (2)accept with minor or major revision, meaning invite the author(s) to revise the manuscript and address specific concerns; (3) reject the article outright, typically on grounds of lack of originality, insufficient conceptual advancements, or major technical and/or interpretational problems. Any changes made to the original manuscript will be clearly stated for the author(s) to review. Authors should then carefully examine the sentence structure, completeness, and accuracy of the text, references, tables, and graphic contents of the revised manuscript. Final decision of articles acceptance will be made by Editors according to reviewers’ comments. Publication of accepted articles including the sequence of published articles will be made by Editor in Chief by considering sequence of accepted date and geographical distribution of authors as well as thematic issue. Meanwhile, The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit articles in all aspects of style, format, and clarity. Manuscripts with excessive errors in any aspect, i.e. spelling, punctuation, or word count, will be returned to authors for revision before resubmission or may be rejected entirely.
Jurnal Suaka Insan Mengabdi (JSIM) welcomes recommendations from reviewers regarding edits to prospective manuscripts. However, in the event of conflicting advice from reviewers, the editors will make a final decision on the course of action. Editors will evaluate the reports from each reviewer, relevant comments made by the authors, and any other information that may not be available to either party before reaching a decision. Jurnal Suaka Insan Mengabdi (JSIM)’ s primary responsibilities are to our readers and the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must assess the validity and reliability of each paper against the many others also under consideration. We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on certain points. Therefore, reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice when requested. Editors are aware that reviewers may be reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes and will keep consultations to the minimum judged necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors. When reviewers agree to assess a paper, the editors consider this as a commitment to review subsequent revisions if necessary, and the editors will not resubmit a paper to the reviewers if it appears that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the initial concerns. Jurnal Suaka Insan Mengabdi (JSIM) takes reviewers’ feedback and criticisms seriously, and its editors are particularly reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, editors may consult the other reviewers as to whether he or she is applying an unduly critical standard. Editors may occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes; however, we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example, a specialist technical problem.