Author Guidelines

1. Commitment to Quality and Integrity in Peer Review

Jurnal MSA (Matematika dan Statistika serta Aplikasinya) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, objective, fair, confidential, and independent peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, methodological validity, and academic integrity of published research.

Jurnal MSA implements a Double-Blind Peer Review system in which each manuscript proceeding to external peer review is evaluated by one (1) qualified and independent reviewer.

Under this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed throughout the review process.

The journal follows the principles of scholarly publication ethics recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, validity of research findings, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and compliance with publication ethics.

2. Objectives of the Peer Review Process

The peer review process aims to:

1. Evaluate the scientific quality, originality, and significance of submitted manuscripts.

2. Assess the validity of mathematical arguments, statistical methodologies, computational procedures, and research conclusions.

3. Ensure that research methods and findings are sufficiently documented and scientifically justified.

4. Identify methodological weaknesses, inconsistencies, and potential research limitations.

5. Provide constructive recommendations to improve manuscript quality and clarity.

6. Minimize potential bias through independent and anonymous scientific evaluation.

7. Support fair, objective, and evidence-based editorial decisions.

8. Maintain the credibility and integrity of scholarly publications.

Peer review is intended not only to determine manuscript suitability for publication but also to contribute to the improvement of scientific communication and research quality.

3. Manuscript Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts must be submitted electronically through the official Jurnal MSA Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening conducted by the editorial team.

The preliminary assessment includes:

1. Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

2. Compliance with accepted manuscript types.

3. Originality and significance of scientific contributions.

4. Compliance with manuscript formatting and language requirements.

5. Completeness of submission documents and metadata.

6. Compliance with authorship and publication ethics requirements.

7. Appropriate anonymization of the manuscript for double-blind review.

8. Initial evaluation of methodological quality and research significance.

9. Similarity screening using Turnitin in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Policy.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the minimum editorial requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review.

In accordance with the journal's manuscript policy, Systematic Literature Reviews submitted on or after January 1, 2026, are not accepted and may be rejected during initial screening.

Successful completion of the initial screening does not guarantee manuscript acceptance.

4. Editorial Assessment and Assignment

Following the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts based on scientific relevance, originality, research contribution, and suitability for further review.

The Editor-in-Chief may:

1. Reject manuscripts that do not meet the journal's editorial standards.

2. Request preliminary revisions or additional clarification.

3. Assign manuscripts to a designated Handling Editor for further evaluation and peer review.

The Handling Editor is responsible for coordinating the review process, appointing a qualified reviewer, evaluating the review report, managing manuscript revisions, and recommending editorial decisions.

Editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and withdraw from handling manuscripts when their independence or impartiality could reasonably be compromised.

5. Double-Blind Peer Review Model

Jurnal MSA applies a Double-Blind Peer Review system to ensure objectivity, fairness, independence, and impartiality throughout manuscript evaluation.

Under this system, reviewers do not receive information identifying the authors, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.

The double-blind review system is intended to minimize potential biases arising from institutional affiliation, academic position, professional reputation, personal relationships, gender, nationality, or other factors unrelated to the scientific merit of the manuscript.

5.1. Anonymity of Authors

Authors are required to prepare manuscripts in accordance with the journal's anonymization requirements before submission for peer review.

Anonymized manuscripts must:

1. Exclude author names, institutional affiliations, email addresses, and other identifying information.

2. Remove acknowledgments, funding information, and statements that directly reveal author identities, where necessary.

3. Avoid identifying information in document headers, footers, filenames, and document properties.

4. Present self-citations in a neutral manner without unnecessarily revealing authorship.

5. Remove identifying information from supplementary materials provided to reviewers.

Anonymization must not compromise scientific clarity, methodological transparency, or research reproducibility.

Complete author information must be provided separately through the OJS submission metadata or other designated submission documents.

5.2. Anonymity of Reviewers

Jurnal MSA protects reviewer identities throughout the editorial and peer review process.

Reviewer names, institutional affiliations, and other identifying information are not disclosed to authors.

Reviewers must avoid including personally identifying information in review reports, comments, or attached evaluation documents.

The editorial team is responsible for ensuring that review communications do not inadvertently reveal reviewer identities.

Reviewer anonymity does not exempt reviewers from their professional and ethical responsibilities.

5.3. Confidentiality During Double-Blind Review

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and supporting materials are treated as confidential throughout the review process.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished mathematical proofs, statistical analyses, research datasets, computational algorithms, or other confidential manuscript content to unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers must not use confidential information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.

Manuscripts and supporting materials must not be shared with third parties without prior editorial authorization.

5.4. Limitations of Anonymity

Jurnal MSA recognizes that complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized research areas or when manuscripts contain distinctive methodologies, preprints, or recognizable research findings.

Nevertheless, authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to respect the confidentiality arrangements established under the double-blind peer review system.

Any accidental disclosure of identities must be reported promptly to the editorial team.

The editor will assess whether the disclosure compromises the fairness of the review process and take appropriate corrective measures when necessary.

6. Selection and Appointment of Reviewers

Jurnal MSA appoints one (1) qualified and independent reviewer for each manuscript proceeding to external peer review.

The Handling Editor selects the reviewer based on:

1. Academic qualifications and subject-matter expertise.

2. Research experience and relevant scholarly publications.

3. Competence in the mathematical, statistical, or computational methods employed.

4. Independence from the authors and their research.

5. Absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

6. Availability to complete the review within an appropriate period.

7. Ability to provide objective, constructive, and scientifically justified assessments.

The appointed reviewer is responsible for evaluating the manuscript's originality, scientific contribution, methodological validity, mathematical and statistical rigor, clarity, and compliance with publication ethics.

If the reviewer is unable to complete the evaluation, becomes unavailable, or has a relevant conflict of interest, the Handling Editor may appoint a replacement reviewer.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not independently determine the final editorial decision.

7. Reviewer Invitation and Acceptance

Invited reviewers must carefully evaluate the review invitation before accepting the assignment.

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they:

1. Possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript.

2. Can complete the review within the requested or agreed period.

3. Have no conflicts of interest that could compromise independence.

4. Can maintain manuscript confidentiality.

5. Are willing to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based scientific assessments.

Reviewers who recognize a manuscript or suspect the identity of its authors must disclose any relevant conflict of interest to the editor.

Knowledge or suspected knowledge of an author's identity does not automatically invalidate the review. However, reviewers must decline or withdraw when a relevant conflict of interest could compromise impartiality.

Reviewers who are unable to undertake the assignment must decline the invitation promptly.

8. Scientific Evaluation Criteria

The appointed reviewer evaluates the manuscript systematically based on scientific merit, originality, methodological validity, and research contribution.

8.1. Originality and Scientific Contribution

The reviewer assesses whether the manuscript presents original research questions, theoretical developments, methodological innovations, empirical findings, or meaningful scientific applications.

The research contribution must be clearly distinguished from existing literature and supported by appropriate references.

8.2. Clarity of Research Objectives

Research problems, objectives, hypotheses, or theoretical questions must be clearly formulated and scientifically justified.

8.3. Mathematical Rigor

For manuscripts involving mathematical theory, the reviewer evaluates the correctness of definitions, assumptions, lemmas, theorems, mathematical proofs, derivations, and logical arguments.

Mathematical conclusions must follow from valid assumptions and rigorous reasoning.

8.4. Statistical Methodology

For statistical research, the reviewer evaluates the appropriateness of research design, sampling procedures, statistical models, assumptions, estimation methods, hypothesis testing, model diagnostics, and interpretation of results.

Statistical conclusions must be consistent with the methods employed and supported by the available evidence.

8.5. Computational and Numerical Methods

For computational research, the reviewer assesses algorithmic correctness, numerical accuracy, simulation design, parameter selection, computational efficiency, and reproducibility.

Where relevant, comparisons with established methods and appropriate performance measures should be provided.

8.6. Data Quality and Research Transparency

The reviewer evaluates whether data sources, research procedures, analytical methods, and supporting documentation are sufficiently described to allow scientific assessment and independent verification, where appropriate.

8.7. Results and Discussion

Research findings must be presented clearly, interpreted correctly, and discussed in relation to relevant theoretical or empirical literature.

Conclusions must be supported by the reported results and must not extend beyond the available scientific evidence.

8.8. References and Scholarly Context

The reviewer assesses whether relevant literature is appropriately acknowledged and whether references are accurate, sufficient, and relevant.

Citation practices must comply with academic integrity standards and must not involve inappropriate citation manipulation.

8.9. Presentation and Academic Writing

Manuscripts must demonstrate logical organization, clarity of scientific expression, appropriate terminology, and compliance with the journal's manuscript preparation requirements.

9. Responsibilities and Ethical Obligations of Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for supporting the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of the publication process.

Reviewers must:

1. Conduct evaluations objectively, fairly, and independently.

2. Provide constructive comments supported by scientific reasoning.

3. Maintain manuscript confidentiality and reviewer anonymity.

4. Avoid using unpublished research information for personal or professional advantage.

5. Disclose potential conflicts of interest before accepting review assignments.

6. Respect intellectual property rights and acknowledge relevant scientific contributions.

7. Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, data manipulation, or other ethical concerns.

8. Complete reviews within the agreed period or promptly communicate anticipated delays.

9. Avoid personal attacks, discriminatory comments, or inappropriate language.

10. Refrain from requesting unnecessary citations to their own publications or other sources.

11. Avoid disclosing information that could reveal their identity to authors.

12. Refrain from sharing manuscripts with unauthorized individuals or external systems without editorial permission.

Reviewers must not involve additional individuals in the review process without prior authorization from the editor.

10. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the scientific assessment, the reviewer submits an evaluation report and recommendation through the OJS platform.

The reviewer may recommend:

10.1. Accept Submission

The manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial standards and requires no substantive revision.

10.2. Minor Revision

The manuscript is scientifically suitable but requires limited improvements involving presentation, clarification, references, formatting, or minor methodological explanations.

10.3. Major Revision

The manuscript demonstrates scientific potential but requires substantial improvements involving mathematical justification, statistical analysis, computational evaluation, methodology, results, discussion, or interpretation.

10.4. Reject Submission

The manuscript contains fundamental scientific weaknesses, insufficient originality, serious methodological deficiencies, unsupported conclusions, or other problems that make it unsuitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

11. Evaluation of the Reviewer Report

The Handling Editor evaluates the scientific assessment and recommendation submitted by the appointed reviewer.

The evaluation considers:

1. Scientific quality and relevance of the review report.

2. Validity of the reviewer's methodological and theoretical assessments.

3. Significance of identified weaknesses or limitations.

4. Adequacy of scientific arguments supporting the recommendation.

5. Compliance with the journal's scientific and ethical publication standards.

The Handling Editor may request clarification from the reviewer when necessary.

If the reviewer is unable to complete the evaluation or a relevant conflict of interest is identified, a replacement reviewer may be appointed.

The editorial decision is based on the reviewer's scientific assessment and the editor's independent evaluation of the manuscript.

12. Editorial Decision-Making Process

Jurnal MSA implements an evidence-based editorial decision-making process following completion of the peer review.

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor may issue one of the following decisions:

12.1. Accept

The manuscript satisfies the journal's scientific, methodological, editorial, and ethical requirements and is approved for publication.

12.2. Minor Revision Required

The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarification before a final acceptance decision.

Minor revisions may be evaluated by the Handling Editor without returning the manuscript to the reviewer.

12.3. Major Revision Required

The manuscript requires substantial scientific or methodological improvements.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewer for further evaluation.

12.4. Reject

The manuscript is rejected because it does not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial requirements.

12.5. Further Editorial Assessment Required

Further assessment may be conducted when the review report is incomplete, unclear, or insufficient to support an editorial decision.

The Handling Editor may request clarification from the reviewer or conduct additional editorial assessment before recommending a final decision.

All editorial decisions must be communicated to authors through OJS and accompanied by appropriate explanations and relevant reviewer comments.

A revision decision does not constitute manuscript acceptance or guarantee subsequent publication.

13. Manuscript Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors are responsible for addressing reviewer and editorial comments carefully and systematically.

Authors should submit:

1. A revised manuscript incorporating the required changes.

2. A point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

3. Scientific justification when particular reviewer recommendations are not adopted.

4. Additional analyses, mathematical proofs, computational results, or supporting information when requested and relevant.

Revised manuscripts must continue to comply with the journal's double-blind anonymization requirements.

Authors must ensure that their responses and revised files do not inadvertently disclose personal identities to reviewers.

The Handling Editor evaluates whether the revisions adequately address the identified concerns.

Failure to address substantial scientific issues may result in additional revision requests or manuscript rejection.

14. Review of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts are assessed according to the nature and significance of the requested changes.

For minor revisions, the Handling Editor may determine whether the authors have satisfactorily addressed the reviewer's comments.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewer to assess the adequacy of the scientific improvements.

The same reviewer may evaluate subsequent revisions to maintain continuity and consistency in the scientific assessment.

If the original reviewer is unavailable, the Handling Editor may appoint a replacement reviewer when necessary.

All review rounds must maintain the confidentiality and anonymity principles of the Double-Blind Peer Review system.

The journal does not guarantee manuscript acceptance following revision.

15. Final Acceptance and Publication Preparation

Once a manuscript has successfully completed peer review and editorial evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor may issue a formal acceptance decision.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which may include:

1. Copyediting and academic language refinement.

2. Verification of references and article metadata.

3. Restoration and verification of author information in the publication version.

4. Formatting and typesetting.

5. Preparation and verification of mathematical equations, tables, and figures.

6. Author proofreading.

7. Final editorial verification.

8. Assignment to an appropriate journal issue.

9. Online publication.

The anonymity requirements associated with double-blind review apply during the evaluation process. Author names and affiliations are included in the final published article in accordance with the journal's publication requirements.

Acceptance does not automatically guarantee publication in a particular issue.

The Editorial Board determines issue assignment according to the journal's publication schedule and production requirements.

16. Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

Jurnal MSA maintains confidentiality throughout manuscript evaluation and peer review.

Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and confidential supporting materials must not be disclosed to unauthorized individuals.

Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished mathematical results, research datasets, statistical analyses, or computational methods for personal advantage.

All editorial decisions must be free from inappropriate personal, institutional, commercial, or financial influence.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Board or individuals affiliated with the journal's publishing institution must undergo independent editorial assessment and double-blind peer review.

Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must not participate in editorial decisions concerning the affected manuscripts.

17. Handling Research Integrity Concerns During Review

If reviewers or editors identify possible research misconduct during peer review, the editorial team will assess the concerns in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

Potential concerns include:

1. Plagiarism.

2. Fabrication or falsification of research data.

3. Manipulation of statistical or computational results.

4. Duplicate or redundant publication.

5. Inappropriate authorship.

6. Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

7. Manipulation of citations or peer review procedures.

The editor may request clarification, supporting evidence, or further investigation.

Editorial processing may be suspended when serious concerns require resolution before a publication decision.

Research integrity matters will be handled in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, and Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy.

18. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or demonstrable misunderstanding may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals must include clear academic or procedural grounds and relevant supporting evidence.

The Editor-in-Chief may consult independent editors or subject-matter experts when appropriate.

If the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, the appeal will be assigned to an independent editor.

An appeal does not automatically require a new review process or reversal of the original decision.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, breaches of anonymity, conflicts of interest, or procedural fairness will be evaluated objectively and confidentially.

19. Review Process Timeliness

Jurnal MSA is committed to conducting the editorial and peer review process efficiently while maintaining rigorous scientific standards.

The duration of manuscript evaluation may vary depending on:

1. Complexity and scientific content of the manuscript.

2. Availability and responsiveness of the appointed reviewer.

3. Extent of revisions required.

4. Need for further editorial assessment.

5. Editorial considerations and publication schedules.

The editorial team will make reasonable efforts to minimize unnecessary delays and communicate decisions through the OJS platform.

Scientific quality and research integrity will not be compromised to meet publication deadlines.

20. Documentation and Transparency

Jurnal MSA maintains appropriate records of the peer review and editorial decision-making process.

Editorial documentation may include:

1. Reviewer invitations and assignments.

2. Reviewer acceptance or rejection of invitations.

3. Review reports and recommendations.

4. Author responses to reviewer comments.

5. Revised manuscript versions.

6. Editorial assessments and recommendations.

7. Final editorial decisions.

8. Relevant correspondence and supporting documentation.

These records support accountability, consistency, and responsible handling of publication ethics concerns.

Confidential information, including reviewer identities and unpublished research materials, will be protected in accordance with the journal's double-blind review procedures and applicable ethical requirements.

21. Policy Statement

Jurnal MSA is committed to implementing a rigorous, independent, fair, confidential, constructive, and ethical Double-Blind Peer Review system for manuscripts in mathematics, statistics, and their applications.

Under this system, each manuscript proceeding to external peer review is evaluated by one (1) qualified and independent reviewer, while the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed during manuscript evaluation.

Manuscripts are assessed based on originality, mathematical and statistical rigor, methodological validity, research transparency, scientific contribution, and compliance with publication ethics.

The appointed reviewer provides an independent scientific assessment and recommendation, while the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

Through the consistent implementation of this Review Process Policy, Jurnal MSA seeks to maintain high standards of academic publishing, strengthen confidence in peer review, and promote the dissemination of reliable, original, and scientifically valuable research.