Peer Review Process

Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Ilmu Pendidikan implements a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure published articles' quality, originality, and relevance. This process is designed to uphold academic integrity, encourage credible knowledge exchange, and ensure that each article contributes significantly to developing education, science, and community service practices. The following are the main stages and principles of the Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Ilmu Pendidikan peer review process:

A. Initial Stage (Initial Review)
After the editor receives a manuscript, an initial screening is conducted to ensure that:

1. Compliance with the focus and scope of Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Ilmu Pendidikan.
2. Compliance of the article structure with the writing guidelines (e.g., IMRAD system: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion).
3. Compliance with publication ethics standards (originality, freedom from plagiarism, and conflict of interest).
4. Completeness of supporting data. Manuscripts not meeting these criteria will be returned to the author for revision or rejection before entering the peer review stage.

B. Peer Review Process
Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Ilmu Pendidikan uses a Single-Blind Review system in which the identities of the peer reviewers are kept confidential to minimize bias. This process involves the following steps:

1.  Assignment of Reviewers: The editor will select 2-3 peer reviewers who are competent in education, community service, or the specific theme of the article. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and publication record.
2. Evaluation by Reviewers: Reviewers evaluate articles based on the following criteria:Relevance:The article's contribution to developing education science and community service practices.
   Originality:Novelty of ideas, program innovation, or methodological approaches.
   Methodology: Adequacy of community service implementation methods, research design, and data analysis.
   Impact: Potential practical application, program sustainability, or policy implications.
   Writing Quality:Clarity of argument, consistency of logic, and use of scientific language.
3. Reviewer Recommendations: Each reviewer provides recommendations in the form of Accepted, Accepted with Minor Revisions, Accepted with Major Revisions, or Rejected, accompanied by constructive comments for improving the article.

C. Final Decision by the Editor
After revisions are complete, the editor will decide on the suitability for publication based on the following:

1. The revisions' compliance with the reviewer's recommendations.
2. The consistency of the arguments and improvement in the quality of the article.
3. The availability of publication slots in the appropriate edition.
4. Revised articles may be returned to the reviewer for re-evaluation (second-round review) if necessary.