Peer Review Processes

Introduction

Accesso Journal is committed to upholding the highest standards in scholarly publishing. The cornerstone of this commitment is a rigorous peer review process, designed to ensure the quality, validity, originality, significance, and clarity of the articles we publish. This policy outlines Accesso Journal's peer review model, the roles and responsibilities of all participants, and the procedures followed. Accesso Journal uses a double-blind peer review model, where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential during the review process. This approach aims to ensure impartiality and objectivity in manuscript assessment. We adhere to the guidelines and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Description

  • Peer Review: The critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to the journal by experts in the relevant field who are not part of the journal's editorial staff. Its primary purpose is to provide the editor with the information needed to make a sound decision about publication and to help authors improve their work.

  • Double-Blind Peer Review: In this model, Accesso Journal ensures that:

    • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

    • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. This method is used to minimize potential bias related to factors such as the author's reputation, affiliation, nationality, or gender, allowing the manuscript to be judged solely on its scientific merit.

  • Role of Reviewers: To provide expert, constructive, and unbiased feedback on the scientific content and presentation of the manuscript.

  • Role of Editors: To manage the peer review process, select appropriate reviewers (including checking author suggestions), evaluate reviewer feedback, and make the final editorial decision.

Policy

  • Mandatory Peer Review: All scholarly contributions submitted to Accesso Journal, including research articles, technical papers, conceptual papers, and case study reports, will undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process before a publication decision is made. Certain types of submissions, such as editorials, guest commentaries, or book reviews, may undergo a different editorial assessment process, which will be clearly communicated.

  • Peer Review Model: Accesso Journal exclusively uses the double-blind peer review model for all eligible submissions.

  • Reviewer Selection:

    • Terms for Suggested Reviewers: If authors choose to suggest reviewers, the following terms apply:

      • A maximum of five (5) names can be proposed.

      • At least two-thirds (⅔) of the suggested reviewers (e.g., at least 3 or 4 out of 5) must be non-Indonesian nationals or researchers affiliated with institutions outside Indonesia.

      • Prospective reviewers must have a Scopus ID with an h-index of at least 5.

      • They must have an active publication record in Scopus-indexed or Web of Science (WoS) indexed journals, with relevant publications in at least the last three years.

      • Suggested reviewers must be willing to donate their time, as Accesso Journal does not offer payment for peer review services.

      • They must allow their names to be displayed on the Accesso Journal website (e.g., in an annual list acknowledging reviewers), if Accesso Journal implements such a practice.

      • Authors are required to list the full name, current affiliation, and official institutional email address for each suggested reviewer. Personal email addresses (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo) are not acceptable for official review-related communication.

      • Suggested reviewers should not have close professional or personal relationships with the authors that could lead to biased reviews.

    • Reviewers are selected by the handling editor based on their demonstrated expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript, their scientific reputation, their availability, and their ability to provide objective, critical, and constructive assessment.

    • Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest with the authors or the research before agreeing to review and must decline if a significant conflict exists.

    • Accesso Journal typically aims to obtain at least two independent peer review reports for each manuscript undergoing full review.

    • Author-Suggested Reviewers: Accesso Journal allows authors to suggest potential reviewers for their manuscript during the submission process. While suggestions are welcomed, the final decision on reviewer selection rests entirely with the handling editor, who will verify the suitability and credentials of any suggested reviewer and ensure the absence of conflicts of interest. Suggested reviewers will be considered alongside editor-selected reviewers.

  • Confidentiality in Peer Review:

    • All manuscript materials, including the manuscript itself, reviewer reports, and all related correspondence, are treated confidentially by editors, reviewers, and journal staff.

    • Reviewers must not disclose any information about the manuscript or their review to any third party without prior permission from the journal.

    • Information obtained during the peer review process must not be used for the reviewer's personal advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.

  • Objectivity, Constructiveness, and Timeliness:

    • Reviewers are expected to conduct their review objectively and provide unbiased, specific, and constructive feedback aimed at improving the manuscript.

    • All comments should be professional and courteous, focusing on the scientific content rather than providing personal criticism of the authors.

    • Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the timeframe set by the journal to ensure timely feedback to authors.

  • Copyright of Review Reports:

    • Peer reviewers who submit review reports to Accesso Journal hold the copyright to their review reports.

    • Accesso Journal will treat review reports as confidential communications. Anonymous reviewer reports will be shared with the manuscript authors. Accesso Journal will not publish reviewer reports or disclose reviewer identities to authors or third parties without the written permission of the respective reviewer, except as required by due process or in a misconduct investigation.

  • Editorial Decision-Making:

    • The final decision on a manuscript (acceptance, rejection, or request for revision) rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the appointed handling editor.

    • This decision is based on the evaluation of reviewer reports, the editor's own assessment of the manuscript's quality and suitability for Accesso Journal, and its adherence to the journal's scope and ethical standards.

    • Editorial decisions are made independently and based solely on the scientific merit of the work.

  • Appeals Process:

    • Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision if they believe a significant misunderstanding, procedural flaw, or evidence of bias has occurred in the review process, as detailed in Accesso Journal's "Complaints and Appeals Policy".

  • Guidance and Ethical Conduct for Reviewers:

    • Accesso Journal provides clear guidelines to its peer reviewers regarding their roles, responsibilities, how to conduct a review, and ethical expectations, drawn from COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

    • Reviewers are expected to adhere to these ethical guidelines, including maintaining confidentiality, declaring conflicts of interest, and reporting any suspected misconduct.

  • Peer Review Process Management:

    • Accesso Journal uses a reliable online editorial management system to ensure an efficient, fair, and transparent peer review process. This system helps track manuscript progress, manage reviewer assignments, and maintain records.

Technical Measures to Achieve and Implement the Policy

  • Manuscript Preparation for Double-Blind Review:

    • Submitting a separate title page containing author names, affiliations, contact information, and acknowledgments. This page is not sent to reviewers.

    • Ensuring the main manuscript file (including images, tables, and supplementary material to be reviewed) is anonymized. This means removing all author names, affiliations, and any direct references to the authors' previous work if phrased in a self-identifying way (e.g., use third-person phrases like "Previous studies have shown [citation]" instead of "Our previous research showed [citation]").

    • Removing identifying information from electronic file properties.

    • Authors are responsible for preparing their manuscript in a way that conceals their identity from reviewers. Specific instructions include:

    • Accesso Journal provides detailed instructions for authors on how to anonymize their manuscripts in the "Author Guidelines" and "Manuscript Preparation Guidelines".

  • Reviewer Anonymity:

    • The journal's editorial management system is configured to ensure that reviewer identities are not revealed to authors.

    • Reviewers are explicitly instructed not to include any information in their review reports or in their comments directed to the authors that could reveal their identity.

  • Invitation to Review and Handling Author Suggestions:

    • Potential reviewers are invited by the handling editor based on their expertise. The invitation includes the manuscript abstract and clear instructions, including the review deadline.

    • Reviewers are required to assess for potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation and must decline if a significant conflict exists.

    • If authors provide reviewer suggestions in their cover letter or via the submission system, the handling editor will assess these suggestions. Suggested reviewers will be vetted against Accesso Journal's criteria (expertise, h-index, publication history, institutional email, absence of COI with authors, etc.). The editor may or may not select author-suggested reviewers and is under no obligation to provide reasons for their decision. The editor will also independently identify and invite other reviewers.

  • Conducting and Submitting the Review:

    • Reviewers are provided with guidelines and often a structured review form to aid their assessment. They evaluate the manuscript based on criteria such as originality, significance of contribution, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical standards.

    • Reviews should include specific comments and suggestions for the authors to improve their manuscript, as well as confidential comments for the editor to aid in the decision-making process.

    • Reviewers are encouraged to inform the editor of any suspected ethical issues, such as plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, or redundant publication.

    • All review reports must be submitted through the journal's online editorial system by the agreed deadline.

  • Communication of Editorial Decision:

    • The handling editor carefully considers all reviewer reports (and may seek additional reviews if needed) before making an editorial decision.

    • Authors are provided with the anonymous reviewer comments and the editor's decision letter, which explains the basis for the decision.

  • Manuscript Revision:

    • If revision is requested, authors are expected to address all comments from the reviewers and editor thoroughly and systematically. A point-by-point response to the comments must be attached to the resubmitted manuscript.

    • Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent of the revisions.

  • Ethical Obligations for Reviewers: Accesso Journal expects all reviewers to adhere to high ethical standards, including:

    • Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript and the review process as confidential.

    • Objectivity: Provide an unbiased and impartial assessment.

    • Expertise: Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have adequate expertise.

    • Timeliness: Submit the review before the agreed deadline.

    • Constructiveness: Provide feedback constructively to help authors improve their work.

    • Non-Exploitation: Do not use information from the manuscript for personal advantage or that of a third party.

    • Conflict Disclosure: Declare all potential conflicts of interest.

    • Reporting Concerns: Alert the editor to any ethical issues related to the manuscript or the review process.

    • No Delegation: Do not forward the manuscript to others to review without first obtaining permission from the journal.

  • Reviewer Acknowledgement:

    • Accesso Journal values the critical contribution of its peer reviewers. While individual anonymity is maintained in the double-blind process, the journal may publicly acknowledge its reviewers annually (e.g., through a list on the website or in an issue) for their service, with their explicit consent (as indicated by the reviewer, including those suggested by authors). Accesso Journal may also explore integration with services that provide formal recognition for peer review activities.

This Peer Review Process policy is designed to ensure high standards of quality, fairness, and integrity for all articles published in Accesso Journal.