Publishing Process

Jurnal PASTI (Penelitian dan Aplikasi Sistem dan Teknik Industri) applies a peer review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, and academic contribution of submitted manuscripts. The process is designed to support fair, objective, and responsible editorial decisions and to maintain the integrity of scholarly publishing. This policy follows the principles outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which emphasize responsible reviewing, clear communication, and accountability throughout the peer review process.

 

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial team to determine whether they comply with Jurnal PASTI (Penelitian dan Aplikasi Sistem dan Teknik Industri)'s submission requirements, fall within the journal's aims and scope, and demonstrate an appropriate level of academic quality. The editorial team may reject a manuscript at this stage if it does not meet the journal's requirements or is unsuitable for further consideration. This preliminary assessment is intended to ensure an appropriate and efficient review process, consistent with the principles of editorial responsibility described in the COPE Core Practices.

 

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submission. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and ability to provide an independent and objective assessment. In accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, reviewers should have the appropriate expertise and sufficient time to conduct a thorough review and should decline invitations when they cannot provide a competent or impartial assessment.

 

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts critically and constructively, considering originality, relevance to the journal's scope, clarity of research objectives, adequacy of the literature review, appropriateness of the methodology, validity of the analysis, quality of the discussion, and the significance of the conclusions. Reviewers should also identify potential ethical concerns, including suspected plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, redundant publication, and undisclosed competing interests, where relevant. These responsibilities are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practices.

Reviewers must provide clear, evidence-based, and constructive comments to help the editor assess the manuscript and enable authors to improve their work. Reviewers should distinguish between major scientific concerns and minor revisions, avoid personal or offensive remarks, and disclose any limitations that may affect their assessment. These expectations follow the ethical principles established in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional advantage without appropriate authorization. Any request to involve another person in the review must be discussed with and approved by the editor beforehand. These requirements are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could affect their impartiality. Such interests may include personal relationships, professional collaborations, institutional affiliations, academic competition, or financial interests. If a competing interest may prevent an objective assessment, the reviewer should inform the editor and decline the assignment where appropriate, in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

The final decision regarding a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor, who considers the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's quality, its relevance to Jurnal PASTI (Penelitian dan Aplikasi Sistem dan Teknik Industri), and the journal's editorial policies. Reviewers provide recommendations but do not make the final publication decision. Possible outcomes include acceptance, acceptance subject to minor revisions, major revisions with further evaluation, or rejection. The editorial decision-making process follows the principles of fairness, accountability, and editorial independence described in the COPE Core Practices.

 

When revisions are required, authors must respond to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editorial office. Authors may provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed or, where a suggestion is not adopted, provide a clear justification. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

The journal may request additional revisions or reject a manuscript if the authors do not adequately address significant concerns. Editorial communication should clearly explain the decision and the actions required from the authors, reflecting the principles of clear communication and responsible review outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

Jurnal PASTI (Penelitian dan Aplikasi Sistem dan Teknik Industri) seeks to conduct peer review within a reasonable timeframe and to communicate editorial decisions to authors as efficiently as possible. Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the agreed deadline or inform the editor promptly if additional time is needed. The journal monitors the progress of manuscripts to minimize unnecessary delays, consistent with the recommendations in the COPE Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors, which addresses timely peer review and the importance of transparent editorial procedures.

Jurnal PASTI (Penelitian dan Aplikasi Sistem dan Teknik Industri) communicates its peer review procedures and editorial requirements to authors and reviewers. The journal maintains appropriate records of reviewer reports, editorial decisions, and relevant correspondence to support accountability and consistency in manuscript handling, in accordance with the principles set out in the COPE Core Practices.