Introduction
The rigours of a peer review system ensure the quality of research articles. IJIL employs a rigorous peer review system. All submitted manuscripts undergo a peer review process before publication.
Double-blind Peer Review
The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It enables authors to improve their manuscripts and aids editors in making decisions on them. IJIL employs a double-blind peer review system.
A double-blind peer review system is an anonymous review system whereby the identity of the author(s) of a manuscript is concealed from the selected reviewers. All details that could help a reviewer identify the author(s) are removed from the manuscript before it is sent to the reviewer. Similarly, we conceal the identities of the reviewers from the author(s) when we send their comments to them.
IJIL considers the double-blind peer system as a more effective review system because it limits possible bias from either the selected reviewers or from authors.
The Peer Review Process
IJIL employs a three-stage review process: the editorial office, external review, and the editors' decision.
The first stage of the review process takes place in the editorial office. We review a manuscript upon submission to make sure it satisfies the journal's minimum requirements before forwarding it to external reviewers. At this stage, we review the manuscript for the following issues:
1. IJIL evaluates the manuscript for possible plagiarism by comparing its level of similarity to published works. IJIL uses Turnitin to detect plagiarism and achieve this goal. Manuscripts that have a high level of similarity with other works (including the author's previous works) are rejected at this stage. We provide the authors with the similarity report and the decision to reject the manuscript.
2. Possible AI-Generated Content: In addition to traditional plagiarism checks, IJIL also evaluates manuscripts for potential AI-generated content. Manuscripts suspected of being generated by AI without proper attribution or transparency will be scrutinized closely. If found to contain unoriginal content produced by AI, the manuscript will be rejected. Authors are encouraged to disclose any use of AI tools in their research and writing processes to ensure transparency and maintain academic integrity.
3. Scope: After a manuscript has undergone a similarity check and the level of similarity is judged to be appropriate, the content of the manuscript is checked to ensure that it fits within the scope of the journal selected by the author(s). If the manuscript's content does not fit the journal's scope, the author is asked for consent to transfer it to a more suitable journal. A transferred manuscript does not automatically translate to an accepted manuscript in the receiving journal. The manuscript still undergoes the usual peer review and may be accepted or rejected if it is not suitable.
4. Recent references: IJIL encourages authors to cite more recent articles. Ideally, a significant portion of the cited articles should be from the past five years. This rule is especially important for articles submitted to journals in the life sciences.
5. Language: IJIL currently publishes the full text of articles in Indonesian, English, and Arabic. We may translate abstracts into other languages and publish them alongside the Indonesian and English abstracts.
6. Proofreading: Manuscripts are checked for the structure, organization, correctness, and clarity of the language as they adhere to the journal's Instructions for Authors. The editorial office usually makes corrections to minor grammatical errors in such a manner that they do not alter the manuscript. However, when the language becomes significantly difficult to understand, the editorial office returns the manuscript to the author to enhance its clarity.
Manuscripts that fail the first review stage are returned to the author(s) for revision and resubmission. This first review stage is vital, as it allows the author(s) to improve the manuscript early on. This first stage of the manuscript review is usually completed within a week.
Once a manuscript successfully completes the editorial office review process, it proceeds to the second stage. The second stage of the review process employs the double-blind review system. We select a minimum of two external reviewers from our database, the journal's editorial board, or other sources. These reviewers have expert knowledge of the subject area of the manuscript. We invite the reviewers to evaluate the manuscript by providing them with its abstract. Once the reviewers accept the invitation to review the manuscript, we conceal the author(s) and send them the full text of the manuscript.
Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscripts and provide useful comments to enable the author(s) to improve its quality. Reviewers also score the manuscript in terms of originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, clarity of presentation, and depth of research. Finally, reviewers make one of the following suggestions about the manuscript:
It should be noted that, though a reviewer may give a positive report on a particular manuscript, if another reviewer raises concerns that may fundamentally undermine the study and results, the manuscript may be rejected.
Upon receiving the reviewers’ comments, the editorial office reviews them. The editorial office re-sends the manuscript to a third reviewer if the two reviewers' opinions about the same manuscripts significantly differ or conflict. We then send all reviewers' comments, including the third reviewer's if necessary, to the author(s). The reviewers’ identities are concealed from the author(s). The total time taken to complete the second stage of the manuscript review is dependent on the availability of the reviewers. However, it is usually completed between one and four weeks.
Using the reviewers’ comments, the author(s) correct the manuscript and submit a revised manuscript. Upon receipt of the revised submission, the manuscript undergoes the third and final stage of the review process. The journal's editor receives the original manuscript, the revised manuscript, and all the reviewers' comments. The editor reviews the manuscript and makes one of the following decisions:
We schedule the publication of manuscripts accepted as they are. The editor sends manuscripts requiring minor or major corrections to the author(s) for implementation. After effecting the corrections, the editor reviews the manuscripts again before they are accepted for publication. The editor may occasionally ask authors to revise their work twice. In other cases, the editor may request that the revised manuscripts, with or without additional corrections, be sent to a specific reviewer who had previously reviewed the manuscript before it can be accepted for publication.
The Manuscript Submission and Review Process
Peer Review Process Flow
The following figure illustrates detailed information on the flow of manuscript submission, from the author's initial submission to the editor's final acceptance.
The submission process can be summarized in the following steps:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Focus and Scope Peer Review Process Publication Frequency Open Access Policy Publication Ethics and Misconducts Retraction and Correction Screening for Plagiarism Archiving Policy Article Processing Charge Indexing and Collaboration
Author Guidelines Reviewer Guidelines Copyright And Licensing Privacy Statement Online Submissions Call For Reviewer/Editor
1.png)
Design by Berkah Kreasi Camp
