Peer Review Process

Introduction
The rigour of a peer review system ensures the quality of a research article. 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 manuscripts. 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 may enable a reviewer to identify the author(s) of a manuscript are removed from the manuscript before the manuscript is sent to the reviewer. Similarly, the reviewers’ identities are also concealed from the author(s) when sending the reviewers’ comments to the author(s).

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. On submission, a manuscript is reviewed to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements of the journal before it is sent to external reviewers. At this stage, the manuscript is reviewed for the following:

• Possible plagiarism: The manuscript is evaluated to compare the level of similarity with other published works. IJIL uses a Turnitin plagiarism detection system to 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. The authors are provided with the similarity report along with the decision to reject the manuscript.
• 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.

• 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). In situations where the content of the manuscript does not fit the scope of the journal, the author’s consent is sought for the manuscript to be transferred 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.

• Recent references: IJIL encourages authors to cite more recent articles. Preferably, a considerable number of the cited articles should be works that were published within the last five years. This is especially important for articles submitted to journals in the life sciences.

• Language: IJIL currently publishes full text of articles in Indonesian, English, and Arabic. Abstracts may be translated to other languages and published alongside the Indonesian and English abstracts.

• 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, in situations where language is substantially difficult to comprehend, the manuscript is returned to the author to improve clarity of the language.

Manuscripts that fail in this first stage of the review process are returned to the author(s) for modification and resubmission. This first stage of the review is very important, as it enables the author(s) to improve the manuscript at an early stage. 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. A minimum of two external reviewers are selected from our database, the editorial board of the journal, or other sources. These reviewers have expert knowledge of the subject area of the manuscript. The reviewers are invited to review the manuscript by sending them the abstract of the manuscript. Upon acceptance to review the manuscript, the full text of the manuscript is sent to the reviewers after the author(s) have been concealed.

Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscripts and provide useful comments to enable the author(s) to improve the quality of the manuscript. 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 suggestion about the manuscript:

• Requires minor corrections
• Requires moderate revision
• Requires major revision
• Not suitable for further processing. In this case, the reviewer provides specific reasons why the manuscript should not be further processed.

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 receipt of the reviewers’ comments, the editorial office reviews the comment. If the two reviewers’ comments have significantly different or contradictory opinions about the same manuscripts, the manuscript is re-sent to a third reviewer. All reviewers’ comments (including the third reviewer's comment where necessary) are thereafter sent 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) make corrections to 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 original manuscript, the revised manuscript, and all the reviewers’ comments are sent to the editor of the journal. The editor reviews the manuscript and makes one of the following decisions:

• Accepted as it is
• Accepted with minor correction
• Requires major corrections
• Send revised manuscript for review again (Resubmit Conditional rejection).
• Rejected

Manuscripts that are accepted as they are are scheduled for publication. Manuscripts that require corrections (either minor or major) are sent to the author(s) to affect the corrections suggested by the editor. After effecting the corrections, the editor reviews the manuscripts again before they are accepted for publication. In some cases, the editor may require authors to make corrections a second time. In other cases, the editor may request that the revised manuscripts, with or without the additional corrections, be sent to a specific reviewer who had previously reviewed the manuscript before the manuscript 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:

1. Manuscript submission by the author (Route 1).
2. Manuscript checking and selection by the manager and editors (Route 2). Editors have the authority to directly accept, reject, or send the manuscript for review. A plagiarism check using Turnitin is conducted on each manuscript before proceeding further.
3. Manuscript reviewing process by reviewers (Routes 3–4).
4. Notification of manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection is sent by the editor to the author based on reviewers' comments (Route 5).
5. The author revises the paper accordingly and submits the revision, following the same process as the initial submission (Route 1).
6. If the reviewers are satisfied with the revisions, the editor sends a notification of acceptance (Route 6).
7. The galley proof and publishing process follow (Routes 7 and 8).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).