Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (JournalISI) undergo a structured editorial and peer-review process to assess their scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, and compliance with the journal’s ethical standards. Submissions must align with the journal’s focus and scope and adhere to its Author Guidelines and Ethics Statement.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial and ethical screening are evaluated by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise. A minimum of two rounds of peer review is required before acceptance. The first round assesses the quality and contribution of the submitted work, while the second evaluates the revised manuscript and the authors’ responses to editorial and reviewer comments. Additional rounds may be required when substantive concerns remain unresolved. Completion of the required review rounds does not guarantee acceptance; final decisions rest with the Editors.

The diagram below presents the ten stages of this process, from manuscript submission to publication, including the pathways for revision, reassessment, and rejection. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copy-editing, proofreading, and author approval before publication. Ethical oversight is maintained throughout the process and continues after publication. Each stage is described in detail below.

Detailed Peer-Review Process

JournalISI requires manuscripts to complete at least two rounds of peer review before acceptance. Manuscripts may be rejected during initial screening or after the first review round. Additional review rounds may be required if scientific or ethical concerns remain unresolved.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system in accordance with the Author Guidelines. Submissions must include the manuscript, a Turnitin similarity report as a Supplementary File, and the required disclosures concerning authorship contributions using the CRediT taxonomy, conflicts of interest, and AI use. Statements of ethical approval and informed consent must be included where applicable.

2. Handling Editor Assignment

The Journal Manager assigns the submission to an appropriate handling editor. Any relevant conflicts of interest must be disclosed and addressed to maintain the objectivity of the editorial process.

3. Initial Editorial and Ethical Screening

The handling editor evaluates the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, scientific merit, originality, presentation, and compliance with submission requirements. This assessment includes similarity screening using Turnitin and verification of applicable ethical disclosures.

The similarity threshold is no more than 15%, inclusive of template structures and bibliometric references. AI use must comply with the journal’s Ethics Statement, including permitted purposes, disclosure requirements, and the maximum 25% AI-generated content limit. Similarity findings and potential ethical concerns are subject to editorial evaluation.

Manuscripts may proceed to peer review, be returned for clarification or preliminary revision, or be rejected at this stage. Where misconduct is suspected, authors are given an opportunity to respond before a final decision is made.

4. Reviewer Appointment

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least two reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.

5. Peer Review — Round 1

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological rigor, data integrity, presentation of results, interpretation, and contribution to the field. They provide constructive comments and recommendations to support the editor’s assessment. Additional information, underlying data, or supporting materials may be requested where necessary.

The handling editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports and determines whether the manuscript should proceed to revision or be rejected. Acceptance is not granted after the first review round, even if the initial recommendations are favorable.

6. Author Revision and Response

Authors invited to continue must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed. When a recommendation is not followed, authors must provide a reasoned explanation.

The handling editor checks the completeness of the revision and response before forwarding the manuscript for the second review round. If authors do not respond within the specified period, the Editorial Office may follow up and, after reasonable notice, close the submission administratively.

7. Peer Review — Round 2

The revised manuscript and the authors’ responses are returned to the reviewers for a second scientific assessment. Reviewers evaluate whether their concerns have been adequately addressed, whether the revisions are scientifically sound, and whether the manuscript meets the journal’s publication standards.

The second review round is mandatory before acceptance and is not replaced by an editorial completeness check. Reviewers provide updated recommendations, identifying any remaining issues that require further revision or justify rejection.

8. Editorial Decision

After the second review round, the handling editor evaluates the revised manuscript, the reviewers’ reports, and the authors’ responses. The Editors may accept the manuscript, request further revision, or reject it. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision, while final responsibility rests with the Editors.

Manuscripts requiring further revision return to the authors and undergo additional peer review before reconsideration. Completing two review rounds does not guarantee acceptance; unresolved scientific or ethical concerns may require further review or lead to rejection.

9. Acceptance and Production

Manuscripts may be accepted only after completing at least two rounds of peer review and satisfactorily addressing the scientific and ethical requirements identified during evaluation.

Following acceptance, the manuscript undergoes copy-editing and proofreading to improve clarity, consistency, and readability while preserving its scholarly meaning. Authors receive the final edited version for review and approval before publication. Any applicable publication charges are handled according to the journal’s published fee policy and do not determine the scientific acceptance decision.

10. Publication and Post-Publication Oversight

The Editor-in-Chief determines publication scheduling and article order, considering acceptance dates, thematic relevance, and the geographical distribution of authors. Ethical oversight continues after publication. Corrections, clarifications, expressions of concern, or retractions may be issued when warranted, following editorial evaluation and the journal’s ethical procedures.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors may submit complaints or appeals to journal-isi@adsii.or.id. The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board where necessary, reviews these cases objectively and confidentially and communicates the outcome to the concerned parties.