Peer Review Process

The Indonesian Journal of Community Service in Education (IJCSE) maintains a fair, independent, confidential, and rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, authenticity, methodological transparency, and ethical integrity of published educational community service articles.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, credible evidence of program implementation, and compliance with publication ethics, without discrimination or inappropriate external influence.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

New submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment, normally within 14 days. The assessment includes:

• Relevance to educational community service and the journal's scope.
• Originality and scholarly contribution.
• Evidence that the reported community service activities were implemented.
• Clarity of program objectives, methods, outcomes, and evaluation.
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines and manuscript structure.
• Completeness of the Cover Letter, Title Page, and Anonymous Manuscript.
• Publication ethics, relevant consent, and permission requirements.

Manuscripts outside the scope or failing essential scholarly or ethical standards may be rejected without external review.

2. Similarity and Plagiarism Screening

Submitted manuscripts undergo screening using appropriate similarity-detection software. The journal normally applies an internal overall similarity threshold of 20%, subject to relevant exclusions and qualitative editorial assessment.

Editors evaluate the nature of textual overlap, proper attribution, duplicate publication, and the originality of the submitted work. Similarity percentages alone do not determine plagiarism.

3. Reviewer Assignment and Independence

Reviewers are selected based on expertise in educational community engagement, relevant research or implementation methodology, professional independence, and the absence of significant conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are expected to disclose relevant financial, institutional, professional, or personal relationships with authors or community partners before accepting an assignment.

Additional reviewers may be appointed when independent specialist advice is necessary.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:

• Originality, relevance, and contribution to educational community service.
• Clarity of identified community needs and program objectives.
• Appropriateness of intervention design and implementation procedures.
• Evidence of actual program implementation and community participation.
• Quality and reliability of documentation, evaluation, and reported outcomes.
• Critical discussion of achievements, limitations, and lessons learned.
• Practical significance, sustainability, and potential transferability.
• Accuracy and relevance of scholarly references.
• Ethical compliance, including participant consent, privacy, and permissions.

Reviewers are expected to offer constructive, objective, and evidence-based feedback. Comprehensive language editing is not part of the reviewer's primary responsibility.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor retains responsibility for the final publication decision.

6. Author Revision and Re-evaluation

Authors receiving revision requests must submit an updated manuscript and a point-by-point response to reviewer comments.

Substantial revisions may undergo additional peer review. Submission of revised materials does not guarantee acceptance.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, supporting materials, evaluation records, unpublished program information, and editorial communications.

They must disclose conflicts of interest and promptly report suspected fabricated activities, falsified results, manipulated documentation, plagiarism, or breaches of publication ethics.

Sensitive participant and community information must be protected throughout the review process.

8. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor considers the reviewer reports, author responses, manuscript quality, authenticity of reported activities, methodological adequacy, and ethical compliance.

Editorial decisions remain independent of financial, commercial, institutional, or community partner influence. Editors with significant conflicts must recuse themselves.

9. Editorial Timeline and Publication

The external peer-review process normally takes approximately 14–30 days, while the overall editorial process generally takes 30–60 days, depending on reviewer availability and revision requirements.

These periods are estimates rather than guaranteed deadlines. Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, proofreading, metadata verification, and publication preparation.

10. Editorial Records and Oversight

IJCSE maintains relevant records of reviewer assignments, review reports, author responses, editorial communication, and publication decisions through its manuscript-management procedures.

These records support editorial accountability and consistency while protecting confidential manuscript and reviewer information.

11. Peer Review Workflow