PEER REVIEW PROCESS
All submitted manuscripts will go through a rigorous peer review process by at least two reviewers who are experts in the paper's field. The review process was carried out in a double-blind peer-review. The factors considered in the review are relevance, significance, originality, readability, and language. Possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection. If the author is encouraged to revise and resubmit the manuscript, there is no guarantee that the revised manuscript will be accepted. Rejected articles will not be reviewed. Acceptance of manuscripts is limited by applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. No research may be included in more than one publication.
1. Paper Submission
✔ Appropriate authors or those who submit papers submit papers to journals via OJS. http://journal.uin-alauddin.ac.id/index.php/jis/
✔ Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work.
✔ The author must state that the manuscript has never been published elsewhere.
✔ The author must state that the manuscript is not being considered for publication elsewhere.
✔ Authors are not allowed to withdraw manuscripts after the peer review process until they receive notification of the status of the manuscript (rejected for publication).
✔ Authors must participate in the peer review process.
✔ The author is obliged to provide revocation or correction of errors.
✔ All Authors named in the manuscript must contribute significantly to the research.
✔ The author must state that all data in the paper is real and authentic.
✔ The author must notify the Editor if there is a conflict of interest.
✔ The author must identify all sources used in making the manuscript.
✔ Authors must report any errors they find in published manuscripts to the Editor.
2. Editor's Assessment
✔ The editor checks the composition and arrangement of the paper based on the Phylogenic Author Guidelines to ensure that the paper includes the necessary sections and style of language. The quality of papers is not assessed at this stage.
✔ Editor has full responsibility and authority to reject/accept articles.
✔ The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication.
✔ Editors should always consider the needs of authors and readers when trying to improve publications.
✔ Editors must guarantee the quality of papers and the integrity of academic records.
✔ The editor must publish an error page or make corrections when necessary.
✔ The editor must have a clear picture of research funding sources.
✔ Editors should base their decision solely on the importance, originality, clarity and relevance of the manuscript to the scope of publication.
✔ Editors may not reverse their decisions or overturn previous editors' decisions without good reason.
✔ The editor must maintain the confidentiality of the identity of the reviewer.
✔ Editors must ensure that all research materials they publish comply with internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
✔ Editors may only accept manuscripts if they are sure enough.
✔ Editors must act if they suspect infringement, whether published or not, and make all reasonable efforts to persist in obtaining a resolution of the matter.
✔ Editors may not reject manuscripts on suspicion, they must have proof of infringement.
✔ Editors must not allow conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.
3. Assessment by the Editor in Chief (EiC)
✔ EiC checks whether the manuscript is in accordance with the phylogeny and is quite original and interesting. Otherwise, the paper may be rejected without further review.
4. EiC Assigns an Editor
✔ Filogeny has a Team of Editors who handle manuscript review. An editor will be assigned at this stage.
5. Invitations to Reviewers
✔ The managing editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes will be appropriate reviewers. When responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of receipts is obtained. All peer-reviewed publications will be referred to in the double-blind peer-review process by at least two reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.
6. Responses to Invitations
✔ Potential reviewers consider the invitation based on their expertise, conflicts of interest, and time availability. They then accept or reject. If possible, when they decline, they can also suggest alternative reviewers.
✔ Reviewers must keep all information regarding the manuscript confidential and treat it as privileged information.
✔ Reviews must be done objectively, without personal criticism of the author.
✔ Reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
✔ Reviewers must identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author.
✔ Reviewers should also call the Chief Editor's attention if there are substantial similarities or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and other published manuscripts of which they are personally aware.
✔ Reviewers must not review manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or connection with the author, company, or institution connected to the paper.
7. Review is done
✔ The reviewer takes time to read the manuscript several times. The first reading is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the work without further work. If not, they'll go through the paper a few more times, taking notes to make a detailed point-by-point review. The results of the review are then submitted to the journal, with recommendations for accepting, necessary revisions, or rejecting them. Results from the review process are usually available within a month of submission.
8. Editor evaluates Reviews
✔ The managing editor considers all the reviews returned before making an overall decision. If reviews differ widely, editors may invite additional reviewers for additional opinions before making a decision.
9. Decision communicated
✔ Editor emails decision to author including relevant reviewer comments. The author must correct all revisions in the manuscript at the request of the reviewers. Reviewers should expect to receive the new version, unless they have opted out of further participation.
10. Final steps
✔ If accepted, the manuscript will be sent to the production department. The author will get a notification. If the article is rejected, the manuscript will include constructive comments from the reviewers and the editorial team to help the authors improve the article.