Peer Review Process

DEVOTION: Jurnal Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat applies a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of published articles. All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening followed by an external peer-review process before a final publication decision is made.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is evaluated by the Editorial Team to determine its alignment with the journal's Aims and Scope, author guidelines, ethical requirements, academic quality, and technical standards.

The initial screening process includes evaluation of:

  • Relevance to community engagement, community service, and community development.
  • Originality and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.
  • Clarity of community needs, objectives, and intervention strategies.
  • Appropriateness of methodology and evaluation approach.
  • Completeness of manuscript structure and supporting evidence.
  • Compliance with publication ethics and similarity screening requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to authors for revision or rejected before external peer review. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to the peer-review stage.

Double-Blind Peer Review

DEVOTION uses a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This policy aims to ensure an objective, fair, and independent evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

External Reviewers

Each manuscript that passes the initial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's discipline or community engagement field.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Significance and originality of the community engagement initiative.
  • Identification of community needs and relevance of the intervention.
  • Appropriateness of methods, implementation strategies, and stakeholder involvement.
  • Quality of results, evaluation methods, and evidence of community impact.
  • Sustainability, scalability, and practical implications of the program.
  • Contribution to community development, applied knowledge, and professional practice.
  • Quality of academic writing, references, and compliance with ethical standards.

Reviewers provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based recommendations to assist the editors in making decisions and help authors improve manuscript quality.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity of their evaluation.

Reviewers should decline assignments when personal, professional, financial, institutional, or collaborative relationships may influence their judgment. Editors are responsible for selecting qualified reviewers and maintaining the independence of the review process.

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer recommendations and editorial evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Authors receiving revision decisions must address reviewer and editor comments appropriately and submit a revised manuscript together with a response to the comments within the specified timeframe.

A revised manuscript is not automatically accepted. Revised submissions may be evaluated again by reviewers or editors before a final decision is made.

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on scholarly quality, reviewer recommendations, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal scope, and contribution to community engagement scholarship.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and related review materials are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose, distribute, copy, or use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for personal, academic, or commercial purposes.

Reviewer identities remain confidential according to the journal's double-blind peer-review policy.

Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with DEVOTION's Publication Ethics, Plagiarism Policy, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.

Reviewers and editors are expected to report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data irregularities, unethical community engagement practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of publication misconduct.

Editorial decisions are based solely on the academic merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and contribution of the manuscript, regardless of authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, or other unrelated personal characteristics.