Peer Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the editorial team to determine whether they fall within the scope of Jurnal Elektronika dan Telekomunikasi (JET) and comply with the journal’s submission requirements. The initial assessment considers the manuscript’s relevance to the journal, originality, scientific contribution, clarity of presentation, and compliance with the applicable author guidelines.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s scope or minimum submission requirements may be rejected without external review. Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment proceed to the peer-review stage.

2. Peer Review Method

JET applies a double-anonymous peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Authors are therefore required to ensure that their manuscripts do not contain information that directly identifies them, in accordance with the journal’s submission guidelines.

Each manuscript considered suitable for external review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and ability to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on relevant scholarly criteria, including:

  • Originality and novelty of the research.

  • Relevance to the aims and scope of JET.

  • Scientific or technical contribution to the field.

  • Soundness of the research methodology and analysis.

  • Validity and clarity of the results and conclusions.

  • Adequacy of the literature review and references.

  • Quality of presentation, organization, and readability.

  • Relevance of the findings to the advancement of electronics, telecommunications, and related fields.

Reviewers may also provide specific recommendations to improve the manuscript’s technical quality, clarity, and scientific contribution.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s independent assessment, the editorial team makes the final decision on each manuscript. Possible decisions include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision.

  • Minor Revision: The authors are required to address limited comments or make minor improvements.

  • Major Revision: The authors are required to undertake substantial revisions and provide a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s publication standards or is otherwise unsuitable for publication.

The receipt of favourable reviewer reports does not automatically guarantee acceptance. The final decision rests with the responsible editor, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript’s quality, and the journal’s editorial standards.

5. Revision and Re-evaluation

When revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. If a comment is not followed, the authors should provide a clear justification.

The editor may assess the revision directly or return it to the original reviewers, depending on the extent of the revisions and the nature of the comments. If the revised manuscript does not adequately address the required changes, further revision or rejection may be considered.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments within the requested timeframe. They must treat manuscripts and related review communications as confidential and must not use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality and decline an invitation when they cannot provide an objective evaluation. They should also inform the editor if they identify substantial overlap with previously published work, suspected plagiarism, or other potential ethical concerns.

7. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, originality, relevance, and compliance with the journal’s publication standards. Editors must disclose and appropriately manage any conflicts of interest involving authors, reviewers, or the submitted work.

When a conflict of interest exists, the handling editor must be replaced by an editor without the relevant conflict. Editors and reviewers must not allow personal, institutional, financial, or other competing interests to compromise the fairness and integrity of the review process.

8. Review Timelines

JET aims to process submissions and communicate editorial decisions in a timely manner. The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of review rounds required, and the time taken by authors to prepare revisions.

Authors are encouraged to respond to revision requests within the deadline specified in the editorial decision. Any extension should be requested from the editorial office.

9. Confidentiality of Review Reports

Reviewer reports and editorial communications are handled confidentially and are shared only with individuals involved in the editorial assessment and publication process, as appropriate. Reviewer identities remain concealed from authors under the journal’s double-anonymous review policy, except where disclosure is required by law or permitted under an applicable journal policy.

JET does not guarantee acceptance based solely on reviewer recommendations; all publication decisions remain subject to editorial assessment.