Peer Review Process

JUSS (Jurnal Sains dan Sistem Informasi) employs a peer review process to ensure that every published article meets high standards of scientific quality, originality, relevance, and makes a clear contribution to the advancement of knowledge in the fields of Information Systems and Computer Science. The review process is conducted objectively and professionally by editors and qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.

All manuscript management processes are conducted through Open Journal Systems (OJS) to ensure that submission, review, communication, revision, and editorial decision-making are properly documented.

Each submitted manuscript is first screened by the editor to assess its compliance with the focus and scope of JUSS, author guidelines, manuscript structure, and the journal's administrative requirements.

At this stage, the editor also conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript's quality and suitability for further consideration. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's focus and scope, fail to meet the basic submission requirements, or contain fundamental scientific shortcomings may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to the peer review process.

Each manuscript that meets the initial requirements will undergo a similarity check using Turnitin, a software tool used to assist in identifying textual similarities in academic manuscripts.

JUSS sets a maximum similarity level of 25% for submitted manuscripts. The Turnitin similarity report will be considered by the editor as one of the factors in determining whether a manuscript is eligible to proceed to the peer review stage.

If the similarity level exceeds 25%, the editor may return the manuscript to the author for revision and resubmission for similarity screening. Authors are responsible for ensuring that any ideas, data, statements, or materials derived from other sources are appropriately cited and attributed.

The similarity score reported by Turnitin does not automatically indicate plagiarism. The editor will review the similarity report comprehensively and consider the context and nature of the identified similarities before making an editorial decision.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening and plagiarism screening will be assigned to at least two reviewers with relevant expertise and competence in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research and publication experience, and the relevance of their academic background to the manuscript under review. The editor also considers potential conflicts of interest when assigning reviewers.

JUSS employs a double-blind peer review method, in which the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors throughout the review process.

The peer review process is conducted through the OJS platform. Reviewers provide evaluations and recommendations based on the manuscript's scientific substance, methodology, originality, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the relevant field of study.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several key aspects, including:

Reviewers are responsible for providing scholarly evaluation and recommendations. Detailed language correction or copyediting is not the primary responsibility of reviewers, although reviewers may provide comments when language issues interfere with the clarity and understanding of the manuscript.

Once the review process has been completed, the editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and recommendations. If revisions are required, the manuscript will be returned to the author through OJS for revision in accordance with the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers.

Authors are required to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise the manuscript comprehensively. In cases where reviewers provide differing recommendations, the editor may request additional clarification, assign an additional reviewer, or make a decision based on academic considerations and the editorial policies of JUSS.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for another round of review when the editor determines that the revisions require further evaluation.

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editor, taking into consideration the reviewers' evaluations, manuscript quality, compliance with the journal's focus and scope, and the editorial policies of JUSS.

Editorial decisions may include:

The editor's decision is independent and is based on scholarly considerations and the reviewers' recommendations. While reviewer recommendations are an important consideration, the final decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

All manuscripts submitted to JUSS are treated as confidential documents throughout the editorial and peer review process. Editors and reviewers must not use, disclose, distribute, or otherwise exploit any information or materials contained in the manuscript for personal purposes.

Reviewers are also required to avoid conflicts of interest and must promptly notify the editor if any circumstance may affect the objectivity of their evaluation.

Manuscripts that have been accepted for publication will proceed to the final editing and layout stages before publication. The editorial team will conduct a final check to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the format, metadata, references, and other publication elements.

Published articles are freely available through the JUSS website under the open access model.