PEER REVIEW PROCESS

A. Review System and Type

This journal implements a Double-Blind Peer Review system. The identities of the authors are concealed from the Peer Reviewers, and vice versa, to ensure the objectivity, fairness, and academic integrity of the evaluation process. Every manuscript that passes the initial screening will be evaluated by at least 2 (two) qualified Peer Reviewers with relevant expertise.

B. Review Workflow and Stages

Every manuscript submitted through the OJS will proceed through the following evaluation stages:

  1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review): The Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board evaluates the manuscript for its alignment with the Focus & Scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines, and text similarity using Turnitin/iThenticate. The maximum similarity tolerance is 20%. Manuscript that does not conform to the template will be rejected or returned to the authors for minor corrections.
  2. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts passing the desk review are assigned to at least two Peer Reviewers with matching expertise under a strict double-blind system.
  3. Review Process: Reviewers evaluate the substance of the work and are required to submit their feedback within a maximum of 21 working days.
  4. Editorial Decision: The Editors make the final decision (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject) based on the substantive recommendations provided by the reviewers.

C. Evaluation Criteria for Community Engagement Substance

In contrast to theoretical research, peer reviewers evaluate community service articles based on the following key metrics:

  • Relevance of Appropriate Tech/Solutions to Partner Challenges: The precision of analyzing the partners' baseline situation and the suitability of the technology or knowledge transferred to address their prioritized challenges.
  • Effectiveness and Innovation of Solutions: Assessing the implementation quality of the actions, the effectiveness of the solutions, the level of appropriate technology transfer, and the novelty of the approach compared to similar previous programs.
  • Community Empowerment Impact: Measuring concrete, observable improvements in the partners, such as gains in knowledge, skills, productivity, behavioral changes, active participation, and self-reliance.
  • Sustainability & Replicability: The clarity of the sustainability plan for partner self-reliance after mentorship ends, and the potential of the program model to be replicated in other communities or regions.
  • Quality of Discussion & References: The depth of evaluation analysis (e.g., comparing pre-test and post-test scores), academic contributions to community development practice, and the inclusion of a minimum of 15 references dominated (>80%) by up-to-date primary sources (journals published within the last 5 years).

D. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Prohibition Policy for Reviewers

In accordance with the national accreditation guidelines:

  • Strict Prohibition: Peer Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.) to analyze manuscripts, evaluate the quality of the work, or draft review comments and recommendations.
  • Confidentiality Protection: Reviewers must not upload any manuscript or parts of it into third-party AI platforms. Uploading content to AI platforms violates author confidentiality and intellectual property rights.
  • Review Accountability: The scholarly evaluation of community service papers must rely solely on the direct expert judgment of the assigned Peer Reviewers to maintain the substance and quality of the publication.