Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to DEVOTION: Jurnal Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat undergo an initial editorial screening and peer-review process to assess their originality, relevance, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance, scholarly contribution, and potential benefits for the target community.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is initially evaluated by the Editorial Team to determine its conformity with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, manuscript template, originality requirements, publication ethics, and basic academic and technical standards.

The initial screening may include an assessment of:

  • relevance to community service and community engagement;

  • originality and added value of the reported program;

  • clarity of community needs and program objectives;

  • appropriateness of the intervention or implementation method;

  • completeness of manuscript structure and supporting evidence;

  • similarity screening;

  • ethical compliance; and

  • conformity with the journal's editorial requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review. Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening proceed to the external peer-review stage.

Double-Blind Peer Review

DEVOTION applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

This system is intended to support an objective, impartial, independent, and academically responsible evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Independent Reviewers

Each manuscript that proceeds to external review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area or community engagement context.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on criteria that include:

  • originality and relevance of the community service program;

  • clarity of the identified community needs or problems;

  • appropriateness of program objectives;

  • adequacy of the methods or intervention strategies;

  • level of community participation and engagement;

  • quality of program implementation;

  • validity and clarity of reported results;

  • evidence of outcomes, benefits, or impact on the target community;

  • quality of evaluation and critical reflection;

  • potential sustainability or replication of the program;

  • contribution to community development, professional practice, or applied knowledge;

  • adequacy and relevance of references;

  • clarity and organization of the manuscript; and

  • compliance with publication ethics and academic integrity.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and sufficiently detailed comments to assist the editors in making editorial decisions and to help authors improve the scholarly quality of their manuscripts.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity in evaluating a manuscript.

A reviewer should decline the review assignment when personal, professional, financial, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or other relationships may reasonably create a conflict of interest.

Editors are responsible for selecting reviewers with appropriate expertise and for maintaining the independence and integrity of the peer-review process.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' evaluations and recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Authors receiving a revision decision are required to address the reviewers' and editors' comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response to each relevant comment within the specified timeframe.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not automatically guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated further by the editors when necessary.

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration the reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the revised manuscript, compliance with the journal's editorial standards, ethical requirements, and the manuscript's scholarly and community contribution.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and related editorial and peer-review materials are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss, copy, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.

Reviewer identities remain confidential in accordance with DEVOTION'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 should inform the editor if they identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, data or documentation irregularities, ethical concerns involving community participants, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other indications of publication misconduct.

Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit, relevance, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and contribution of the manuscript and are made independently of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religious or political views, ability to pay publication fees, or other characteristics unrelated to the quality of the work.