Peer Reviewer

Peer Review Process

JTISI (Jurnal Testing dan Implementasi Sistem Informasi) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, transparent, fair, and unbiased Double-Blind Peer Review process. Every manuscript submitted to JTISI undergoes multiple stages of evaluation to ensure scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identities throughout the review process, ensuring an objective and impartial evaluation.

Stage 1. Editorial Office Screening

After submission, every manuscript is first examined by the Editorial Office to ensure that:

  • the manuscript complies with the Author Guidelines;
  • the article fits the journal's Focus and Scope;
  • all required submission files are complete;
  • the manuscript follows the journal template;
  • references are properly formatted;
  • ethical statements are included where applicable;
  • similarity index is within the acceptable threshold using plagiarism detection software;
  • the manuscript has not been previously published or simultaneously submitted elsewhere.

Manuscripts failing to meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision before entering peer review or may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).

Stage 2. Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Handling Editor evaluates the manuscript based on:

  • originality and novelty;
  • scientific contribution;
  • research significance;
  • methodological appropriateness;
  • clarity of presentation;
  • relevance to JTISI.

At this stage, manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope or fail to meet minimum scientific standards may be rejected.

Stage 3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise in the manuscript's research area.

JTISI adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review system, meaning:

  • reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
  • authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently without influence from other reviewers.

Whenever possible, reviewers are selected from different institutions than the authors to minimize conflicts of interest.

Stage 4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several scientific criteria, including:

  • originality and novelty of the research;
  • significance of the contribution to Information Systems and related disciplines;
  • relevance to the journal's scope;
  • adequacy of literature review;
  • clarity of research objectives;
  • appropriateness of research methodology;
  • validity of data collection and analysis;
  • interpretation and discussion of results;
  • consistency between conclusions and findings;
  • quality of figures, tables, and illustrations;
  • completeness and currency of references;
  • writing quality and organization;
  • compliance with publication ethics.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed, constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

Stage 5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers' recommendations, the Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without Revision
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject and Resubmit as a New Submission
  • Reject

The final publication decision always rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Stage 6. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to:

  • revise the manuscript carefully;
  • respond to every reviewer comment individually;
  • submit a detailed Response to Reviewers document;
  • highlight all changes made in the revised manuscript.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified deadline may result in manuscript withdrawal.

Stage 7. Second Round Review

Major revisions are generally returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the Handling Editor without additional external review when appropriate.

Additional rounds of revision may be requested until the manuscript satisfies the journal's publication standards.

Stage 8. Third Reviewer

JTISI normally appoints two reviewers for each manuscript.

However, a third independent reviewer may be assigned under circumstances such as:

  • substantially conflicting recommendations between reviewers;
  • significant disagreement regarding scientific quality;
  • requests from the Editor requiring additional expert opinion;
  • highly specialized interdisciplinary research requiring additional expertise.

The third review assists the Editor in making a balanced and well-informed editorial decision.

Stage 9. Final Acceptance

After all reviewer comments have been satisfactorily addressed, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final acceptance decision.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to:

  • copyediting;
  • language editing (if necessary);
  • layout editing;
  • proofreading;
  • DOI registration;
  • online publication.

Reviewer Responsibilities

JTISI reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of professionalism and publication ethics.

Reviewers should:

  • review only manuscripts within their area of expertise;
  • maintain strict confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts;
  • declare any potential conflicts of interest immediately;
  • provide objective, unbiased, and constructive evaluations;
  • avoid personal criticism of the authors;
  • support comments with scientific evidence whenever possible;
  • identify relevant published work not cited by the authors;
  • report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, unethical research, or image manipulation;
  • complete reviews within the assigned review period.

Reviewers must not:

  • use unpublished information for personal research;
  • disclose manuscript contents to others;
  • contact authors directly;
  • allow personal bias to influence their recommendations.

Reviewer Guidelines

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should:

  • verify that the manuscript matches their expertise;
  • ensure there are no conflicts of interest;
  • confirm their availability to complete the review on time.

If the manuscript is outside their expertise or a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should decline the invitation promptly.

Review Submission Procedure

After accepting the review invitation, reviewers should:

  1. Download the manuscript.
  2. Carefully evaluate all sections of the manuscript.
  3. Provide detailed comments using the manuscript review tools (e.g., MS Word Track Changes or annotations where applicable).
  4. Complete the JTISI Reviewer Evaluation Form.
  5. Provide confidential comments for the editor if necessary.
  6. Provide comments intended for the authors.
  7. Recommend one of the following editorial decisions:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revision
    • Major Revision
    • Reject
  8. Upload:
    • the annotated manuscript (if applicable);
    • the completed evaluation form;
    • any supplementary review documents.
  9. Submit the review through the Online Journal System (OJS).

Publication Ethics

All reviewers, editors, and authors are expected to follow the ethical principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any suspected ethical misconduct—including plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, authorship disputes, or conflicts of interest—will be investigated in accordance with JTISI's Publication Ethics Policy and COPE guidelines