Peer Review Process

Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to maintain the academic quality, integrity, relevance, and credibility of the manuscripts it publishes. Under this review model, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process.

The journal regards peer review as an essential component of scholarly publishing. Reviewers provide independent academic assessments that assist the editors in evaluating the originality, methodological quality, scholarly significance, clarity, ethical integrity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit of each manuscript and are made independently of the authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, geographic location, personal background, or other characteristics unrelated to academic quality.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system.

Before submission, authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts comply with the journal's:

  • Focus and scope;

  • Author guidelines;

  • Manuscript formatting requirements;

  • Publication ethics policies;

  • Authorship and contributorship requirements;

  • Citation and reference requirements;

  • Research ethics requirements, when applicable; and

  • Other editorial policies established by the journal.

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee that the manuscript will be sent for peer review or accepted for publication.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration.

The initial screening may assess:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  • Compliance with the journal's author guidelines;

  • Completeness of the submitted files and required information;

  • General quality and organization of the manuscript;

  • Academic and scientific relevance;

  • Originality of the work;

  • Adequacy of references;

  • Compliance with ethical publishing standards; and

  • Potential indications of plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, or other forms of publication misconduct.

A manuscript that falls outside the journal's scope, does not meet basic academic standards, substantially fails to comply with submission requirements, or presents significant ethical concerns may be rejected during the initial editorial screening without external peer review.

Where appropriate, authors may be asked to make preliminary corrections before the manuscript proceeds to peer review.

3. Assignment to an Editor

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to an editor with appropriate academic knowledge or editorial responsibility for the subject area of the manuscript.

The assigned editor oversees the review process and evaluates whether the manuscript is sufficiently relevant and academically developed to proceed to external peer review.

The editor also identifies suitable reviewers whose expertise corresponds to the subject matter, methodology, and disciplinary context of the manuscript.

4. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are selected based on their relevant academic expertise, research experience, professional competence, and ability to provide an independent and constructive evaluation of the manuscript.

Reviewers should be sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject matter of the manuscript and should not have relationships or interests that could compromise the independence and objectivity of the review.

Individuals invited to review a manuscript are expected to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting the review assignment.

If a conflict of interest could reasonably affect the impartiality of the review, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

The journal seeks to ensure that peer review remains independent from inappropriate personal, institutional, professional, or financial influence.

5. Double-Blind Peer Review

Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun uses a double-blind peer-review system.

Under this system:

  • Reviewers do not receive information identifying the authors.

  • Authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers.

  • Reviewer reports are communicated to authors without disclosing reviewer identities.

  • Authors are expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that minimizes information that could directly reveal their identity during the review process.

The purpose of identity masking is to reduce potential bias and encourage reviewers to assess manuscripts primarily on their academic content, methodological quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to maintain anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed when information contained in a manuscript could indirectly indicate the identity of an author.

6. Criteria for Peer-Review Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, critically, and constructively.

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewers may consider the following criteria:

Originality and Contribution

Reviewers assess whether the manuscript offers an original contribution to knowledge, practice, methodology, community empowerment, community-engaged scholarship, or related areas within the journal's scope.

Relevance to the Journal

The manuscript should clearly correspond to the focus and scope of Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun and contribute meaningfully to scholarship or practice related to community empowerment and community engagement.

Research Problem and Objectives

The manuscript should present a clearly defined problem, purpose, research question, or objective that provides a coherent foundation for the study.

Literature and Theoretical Foundation

Relevant literature should be appropriately selected, critically discussed, and used to establish the academic context and significance of the work.

Methodological Quality

The methods should be appropriate for the objectives of the study and described with sufficient clarity to allow readers to understand how the research or community-based activity was designed, conducted, and evaluated.

Results and Evidence

The findings should be presented accurately, logically, and transparently. Conclusions should be supported by the evidence presented in the manuscript.

Discussion

The discussion should interpret the findings in relation to relevant literature, explain their significance, identify important implications, and acknowledge appropriate limitations.

Community Relevance and Impact

Where applicable, the manuscript should demonstrate a meaningful connection to community needs, participation, empowerment, capacity development, knowledge transfer, innovation, or measurable and potential societal impact.

Academic Writing and Organization

The manuscript should be coherent, logically structured, professionally written, and sufficiently clear for its intended scholarly audience.

References

References should be relevant, appropriate, sufficiently current where necessary, and accurately cited in accordance with the journal's requirements.

Research and Publication Ethics

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript demonstrates appropriate ethical conduct, transparency, responsible reporting, and compliance with applicable research and publication standards.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Conduct reviews objectively and professionally;

  • Provide clear, constructive, and academically justified comments;

  • Evaluate manuscripts according to scholarly merit rather than personal preference;

  • Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials;

  • Avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal advantage;

  • Disclose conflicts of interest;

  • Avoid personal, discriminatory, hostile, or inappropriate comments about authors;

  • Identify important relevant literature that may have been overlooked when appropriate;

  • Alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or other potential ethical concerns; and

  • Submit their evaluations within a reasonable period or inform the editor if they are unable to complete the review.

Reviewers serve in an advisory capacity. Their recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not independently determine whether a manuscript will be accepted or rejected.

8. Confidentiality of Peer Review

All manuscripts undergoing peer review are treated as confidential scholarly documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use information contained in an unpublished manuscript except as necessary for legitimate editorial and peer-review purposes.

Reviewers must not share a manuscript with another person without authorization from the journal.

Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, professional, commercial, or academic advantage.

9. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers provide comments and recommendations to assist the editor in reaching an editorial decision.

Recommendations may generally indicate that the manuscript:

  • Is suitable for publication;

  • Requires revision before further consideration;

  • Requires substantial revision and reassessment; or

  • Is not suitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than binding. The final editorial decision is made by the responsible editor based on the complete evaluation of the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, journal policies, and the manuscript's academic merit.

10. Editorial Decision

After considering the peer-review reports, the editor makes an editorial decision.

Possible decisions may include:

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and editorial requirements and may proceed toward publication, subject to any necessary editorial or production preparation.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is considered potentially suitable for publication but requires limited corrections, clarification, or improvement before a final decision can be made.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial changes to its content, methodology, analysis, discussion, presentation, or other significant components before it can be reconsidered.

Reject

The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication because of substantial concerns regarding its scope, originality, methodology, academic contribution, ethical integrity, or other fundamental issues that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

Acceptance is never guaranteed at the time of submission or during any stage of peer review.

11. Revision by Authors

When revision is requested, authors should carefully consider all reviewer and editor comments.

Authors are expected to:

  • Revise the manuscript systematically;

  • Address substantive concerns raised during peer review;

  • Provide clear responses to reviewer comments;

  • Explain the changes made in the revised manuscript; and

  • Provide a reasoned academic explanation when a reviewer recommendation is not followed.

Authors should respond professionally to reviewer comments, including when they disagree with a recommendation.

A request for revision does not constitute acceptance of the manuscript.

12. Review of Revised Manuscripts

A revised manuscript is evaluated by the editor to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised during peer review.

When necessary, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewer or sent for additional peer review.

Further rounds of revision may be requested when significant scholarly issues remain unresolved.

The review process continues until the editor has sufficient information to make a final editorial decision.

13. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication rests with the journal's editorial authority.

The decision is based on consideration of:

  • The manuscript's scholarly quality;

  • Its relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  • Originality and contribution;

  • Methodological rigor;

  • Reviewer evaluations;

  • Authors' responses and revisions;

  • Ethical considerations; and

  • Compliance with the journal's editorial policies.

Editors are responsible for maintaining editorial independence and ensuring that decisions are not improperly influenced by financial, institutional, personal, or other nonacademic considerations.

14. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently and are based on scholarly merit.

The journal does not permit publication fees, institutional relationships, sponsorship arrangements, personal relationships, or other financial or nonacademic considerations to determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

The editorial process remains institutionally and academically independent from inappropriate external influence.

15. Conflicts of Interest

Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to disclose conflicts of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the integrity of the review and decision-making process.

Potential conflicts may arise from:

  • Personal relationships;

  • Professional relationships;

  • Institutional affiliations;

  • Academic competition;

  • Financial interests;

  • Research collaboration; or

  • Other circumstances that could compromise impartial judgment.

When an editor has a conflict of interest involving a submitted manuscript, editorial responsibility should be transferred to another appropriate editor whenever necessary to preserve the independence of the review process.

16. Research Misconduct and Ethical Concerns

If editors or reviewers identify potential research or publication misconduct during the review process, the journal may conduct further examination before making an editorial decision.

Potential concerns may include:

  • Plagiarism;

  • Duplicate or redundant publication;

  • Data fabrication;

  • Data falsification;

  • Citation manipulation;

  • Inappropriate authorship;

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • Ethical violations involving research participants;

  • Manipulation of the peer-review process; or

  • Other practices that compromise the integrity of scholarly publication.

The journal may request clarification, supporting documentation, original data, ethical approval documentation, or other relevant information when necessary to assess a concern.

Editorial actions should follow established publication ethics principles and appropriate procedures for handling allegations of misconduct.

17. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may raise legitimate concerns regarding editorial procedures or decisions.

An appeal should provide a clear academic justification explaining why the author believes a significant factual, methodological, procedural, or interpretive issue was overlooked or misunderstood during the review process.

An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or reversal of an editorial decision.

Complaints and appeals should be evaluated fairly and independently, without retaliation against the individuals who raise them in good faith.

18. Peer-Review Timeliness

Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun seeks to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly evaluation.

The journal does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or guarantee that every manuscript will complete peer review within an identical period, because review time may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, required revisions, and other legitimate editorial considerations.

When substantial delays occur, the journal should communicate relevant information to the author. Authors may contact the editorial office regarding manuscripts that have remained under review for an unusually extended period.

19. Exceptions to the Standard Peer-Review Process

Scholarly manuscripts presented as peer-reviewed content are subject to the journal's established peer-review procedures unless an exception is explicitly identified.

If any category of published content does not undergo the journal's standard double-blind peer-review process, the journal should clearly identify the applicable editorial or review procedure so that readers can distinguish peer-reviewed scholarly content from other forms of publication.

Any article handled under an exceptional review procedure should transparently indicate the type of review it received.

20. Publication Information

For published scholarly articles, the journal provides the publication date and may also provide relevant editorial history, such as submission, revision, and acceptance dates, in accordance with its publishing practices.

Displaying this information contributes to transparency regarding the editorial and publication history of the article.

21. Commitment to Fair and Ethical Peer Review

Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun is committed to maintaining a peer-review process that is independent, confidential, constructive, transparent, academically rigorous, and ethically responsible.

The journal evaluates manuscripts according to their scholarly merit, methodological soundness, originality, relevance, clarity, and contribution to knowledge and practice. Through double-blind peer review, responsible editorial oversight, and adherence to recognized standards of publication ethics, the journal seeks to protect the integrity of the scholarly record and promote trustworthy research in community empowerment and community-engaged scholarship.