Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

ADI Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat (ADIMAS) implements a peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scientific contribution of every manuscript submitted for publication. The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the evaluation process. Before entering the review stage, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine its suitability for the journal's focus and scope, author guidelines, and publication standards.

Peer Review Procedure

The peer review process of ADIMAS Journal consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor to determine their suitability for the journal's focus and scope, compliance with the author guidelines, completeness of the submission, originality, and adherence to the prescribed manuscript structure. Authors are required to prepare their manuscripts using the official LaTeX template and fulfill the requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines and Submission Requirements . Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before proceeding to peer review.

2. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening undergo plagiarism and similarity checking. ADIMAS Journal requires manuscripts to have a similarity index of less than 30%. Manuscripts exceeding this threshold may be returned for clarification or rejected, depending on the nature and extent of the similarity identified. All manuscripts must demonstrate originality and comply with publication ethics standards.

3. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening and similarity checking stages are assigned to two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications and research expertise. The double-blind review mechanism ensures that neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities during the evaluation process.

4. Review Process

Reviewers are given a maximum of 14 days to evaluate the submitted manuscript. The evaluation focuses on originality, relevance to the journal's scope, scientific contribution, methodological soundness, validity of findings, clarity of presentation, and adequacy of references. Reviewers are expected to provide objective assessments, constructive comments, and recommendations to improve the quality of the manuscript. The review recommendations are categorized as follows:

a. Accept

The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without requiring substantial revisions. This recommendation is given when the manuscript demonstrates sufficient originality, scientific quality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal's scope. Minor editorial corrections, language improvements, or formatting adjustments may still be required before the manuscript proceeds to the publication process.

b. Revision

The manuscript demonstrates potential for publication but requires revisions to address the reviewers' comments and improve its overall quality. Revision decisions are classified into two categories:

Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited modifications that do not substantially affect its research design, methodology, or main findings. These may include clarifying statements, improving the presentation of results, correcting references, refining the discussion, or addressing minor technical and editorial issues. The revised manuscript may be evaluated directly by the Editor without requiring another full review by the reviewers.

Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements concerning its methodology, data analysis, theoretical foundation, interpretation of findings, or scientific contribution. Authors must carefully address all major concerns raised by the reviewers and provide a detailed explanation of the revisions made. The revised manuscript will normally be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation to determine whether the required improvements have been adequately addressed.

c. Reject

The manuscript is considered unsuitable for publication in ADIMAS Journal. This recommendation may be given when the manuscript falls outside the journal's focus and scope, lacks sufficient originality or scientific contribution, contains fundamental methodological weaknesses, presents unreliable findings, or raises serious concerns regarding publication ethics. Rejected manuscripts will not proceed to the revision stage within the current review process. Authors may submit a substantially improved manuscript as a new submission, provided that it complies with the journal's submission policies.

5. Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized Editor based on the reviewers' recommendations, evaluation comments, and the journal's publication standards. The Editor may decide to accept the manuscript, request minor revision, request major revision, or reject the submission. If the reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the Editor may appoint an additional reviewer to obtain further assessment before making the final decision.

6. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision must carefully revise their manuscripts according to all comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and Editor. A detailed response to reviewers (rebuttal letter) must accompany the revised manuscript, explaining how each comment has been addressed. Authors are required to submit their revised manuscripts within 7 days after receiving the review results. Manuscripts requiring major revisions will normally undergo a further evaluation by the original reviewers, while manuscripts requiring minor revisions may be assessed directly by the Editor.

7. Revision Deadline

Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the specified deadline. Manuscripts submitted after the deadline without prior approval from the Editor may be considered withdrawn or rejected. Authors who require additional time must communicate their request to the Editor before the revision deadline expires.

8. Final Acceptance and Publication

Manuscripts that receive final acceptance will proceed to copyediting, proofreading, and layout preparation. Authors may be requested to verify the final version of their manuscripts before publication. The accepted manuscripts will be published according to the journal's editorial schedule after all editorial and production requirements have been fulfilled.