Peer Reviewer Process

Peer Reviewer Process

The editor first reviews the submitted manuscript, which is called the editor's initial review. It will be evaluated whether the submitted manuscript is suitable for the Jurnal Sains Teknologi Transportasi Maritim based on focus and scope, methodological defects, article readability, and following the submitted paper template.

Next, the manuscript will be sent to at least two anonymous reviewers (Double-Blind Peer-Review).

Anonymous reviewer comments are then sent to the corresponding author for response and necessary action as appropriate. After that, the editorial team meeting proposes a final decision on the manuscript which has been revised by the authors.

Finally, the Editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author.

The received manuscript then proceeds to the copyediting and layout editing process to prepare the production process

Reviewer Guidelines

The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript. The peer review description does not specify the number of reviews each manuscript receives.

Before Reviewing
Jurnal Sains Teknologi Transportasi Maritim asks the reviewers to consider the following: 

  • Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
    If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend an alternate reviewer. 
  • Do you have time to review the paper?
    Finished reviews of an article should be completed within three weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and suggest an alternate reviewer if possible. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible. 
  • Are there any potential conflicts of interest?
    While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office. 

The Review
When reviewing the article, Jurnal Sains Teknologi Transportasi Maritim asks the reviewers to keep the following in mind: 

  • Content Quality and Originality,
    Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Are the papers in this field journal category? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Mendeley. 
  • Organization and Clarity
  • Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es), and the general experimental design or method.
  • Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
  • Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
  • Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
  • Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

 Final Comments

  • All submissions are confidential and please do not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party.
  • If you would like to discuss the article with a colleague, please ask the editor first.
  • Please do not contact the author directly.
  • Ethical Issues:
    - Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible
    - Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor
    - Other ethical concerns: For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the editor 

Reviewers’ recommendations and scores
Please complete the “Reviewer’s Comments” form by the due date to the receiving editorial office. Your recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the editors make the final decision, and your thorough, honest feedback will be much appreciated.
When writing comments, please indicate the section of comments intended for only the editors and the section of comments that can be returned to the author(s). Please never hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office with any questions or concerns you may have.