Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process Policy

MACHINERY: Jurnal Teknologi Terapan implements a double-blind peer-review process to assess the quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and scholarly integrity of submitted manuscripts. Under this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during peer review. Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial assessment is normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise.

The journal strictly adheres to a standard, rigorous peer-review process and does not offer any fast-track services. Consequently, no Letter of Acceptance (LoA) will be issued under any circumstances until the manuscript has officially completed the review process and received a final decision of acceptance from the Editors.

The journal’s peer-review procedures and reviewer responsibilities are guided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, emphasizing confidentiality, impartiality, constructive assessment, accountability, and timeliness.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team. This assessment considers:

  • suitability for the journal’s focus and scope;

  • compliance with the Author Guidelines and manuscript template;

  • manuscript structure, clarity, and overall scholarly quality;

  • appropriateness of the research design or analytical approach;

  • originality and contribution to psychological knowledge;

  • compliance with research and publication ethics; and

  • potential plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap.

Similarity reports support editorial assessment and are interpreted in context. A similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, fail to meet minimum scholarly standards, substantially disregard submission requirements, or present serious ethical concerns may be rejected without external peer review. Authors may also be asked to address technical deficiencies before further consideration.

The estimated time for initial editorial assessment is approximately 14 days.

Preparation for Double-Blind Review

Authors must prepare an anonymized manuscript by removing names, affiliations, acknowledgements, identifying file metadata, and other information that could unnecessarily reveal their identities.

Author information should be provided separately through the submission system or a separate title page, as required by the journal. References to the authors’ previous work should be written neutrally without compromising citation accuracy.

Editors take reasonable steps to preserve anonymity. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when research has been publicly disseminated or is readily identifiable.

Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent external reviewers. Reviewers are selected according to their expertise, research experience, methodological competence, and relevance to the manuscript.

Where necessary, the editor may seek additional expertise in psychological measurement, statistical analysis, qualitative methods, Islamic scholarship, or other relevant areas.

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they possess sufficient expertise and can complete the assessment within the requested timeframe. Any substantial limitations in their expertise must be disclosed to the editor.

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest. Relevant interests may include financial relationships, recent collaboration, institutional connections, close personal relationships, direct competition, or commitments that could compromise impartiality.

If a reviewer recognizes an author or identifies a potential conflict despite anonymization, they must notify the editor before proceeding.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers are expected to observe the following principles:

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and review correspondence must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or discuss submitted materials with unauthorized individuals.

Another person may assist with a review only with prior editorial permission. Any approved assistance must be disclosed, and the individual involved must observe the same confidentiality requirements.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or related materials to external AI systems or other services without journal authorization and adequate confidentiality safeguards.

Protection of Unpublished Information

Unpublished data, arguments, interpretations, methods, or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage, to benefit another party, or to disadvantage others.

Objective and Constructive Assessment

Reviews must be evidence-based, professionally expressed, and focused on the manuscript’s scholarly quality.

Personal criticism, hostile language, discriminatory remarks, defamatory statements, and unsupported accusations are unacceptable.

Reviewers should explain their concerns clearly and distinguish revisions essential to the manuscript’s validity from optional improvements.

Fairness and Impartiality

Manuscripts must be assessed on scholarly merit. Reviews must not be influenced by authors’ nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, religious beliefs, political views, or other personal characteristics.

The journal’s Islamic Psychology focus informs assessment of subject relevance and theoretical contribution without justifying discrimination against authors.

Disclosure of Competing Interests

Reviewers must promptly disclose interests that could affect their impartiality. If a conflict becomes apparent after accepting an assignment, the reviewer must notify the editor and seek guidance.

Timeliness

Reviewers should complete their assessments within the agreed timeframe. If additional time is required or completion becomes impossible, they must inform the editorial office promptly.

Reporting Ethical Concerns

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, unethical research practices, manipulated peer review, or other integrity concerns must be reported confidentially to the editor.

Reviewers must not independently investigate allegations or contact authors directly about such concerns.

Responsible Citation Recommendations

Recommendations for additional references must have a clear scholarly purpose. Reviewers must not request citations to their own work, their associates’ work, or particular journals solely to increase citation counts or visibility.

Respect for the Study’s Scope

Reviewers may request clarification or additional analyses necessary to evaluate the manuscript’s claims. They should not require authors to undertake an unnecessarily expanded or fundamentally different study as a condition of publication.

Accountability

Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, reasoning, and professional quality of their assessments. Recommendations must be consistent with the substantive comments provided to the editor and authors.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review process ends.

Peer-Review Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the article type and research approach. Evaluation generally covers:

  • originality, significance, and contribution to knowledge;

  • relevance to Islamic Psychology and related psychological fields;

  • clarity of objectives, research questions, or hypotheses;

  • adequacy of theoretical and conceptual foundations;

  • appropriateness of the research design or analytical approach;

  • quality of sampling, participant selection, or source selection;

  • adequacy of measurement, data collection, and supporting evidence;

  • transparency and rigor of analysis;

  • consistency between findings, interpretation, and conclusions;

  • consideration of limitations and alternative explanations;

  • relevance, accuracy, and currency of references;

  • compliance with research and publication ethics; and

  • clarity, coherence, and scholarly presentation.

For quantitative studies, reviewers consider measurement quality, statistical procedures, and the support provided for reported conclusions. For qualitative studies, they assess methodological coherence, analytical transparency, reflexivity, and trustworthiness. Mixed-methods studies are also evaluated for the quality of integration between components.

Literature reviews, theoretical studies, and conceptual contributions are assessed according to the transparency of source selection, quality of synthesis, coherence of argument, and contribution to the field.

Where Islamic sources or concepts are central to a manuscript, reviewers consider the accuracy of their representation, the appropriateness of interpretation, and the coherence of their integration with psychological scholarship.

The estimated review period is approximately 14 days per review round after reviewers accept the assignment. Reviewer recruitment, author revisions, and additional rounds may require further time.

Editorial Decision and Revision

Following consideration of reviewer reports, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission;

  • Revisions Required / Minor Revision;

  • Resubmit for Review / Major Revision; or

  • Decline Submission.

Authors requested to revise must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed. Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they should provide a reasoned scholarly explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or referred to additional reviewers where necessary.

Multiple review rounds may be required. A revision invitation does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief, or an appropriately designated independent editor where a conflict of interest exists, makes the final publication decision based on the manuscript’s quality, reviewer reports, journal policies, and ethical considerations.

Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions must remain independent of publication fees, commercial interests, institutional pressure, or personal relationships.

Editors must withdraw from handling manuscripts when relevant conflicts of interest could compromise impartiality.

Submissions authored by editors or Editorial Board members undergo the same assessment standards as other manuscripts. An independent editor manages the process, and the author-editor takes no part in reviewer selection, confidential editorial deliberations, or the publication decision.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation through the journal’s official communication channels. Appeals should identify specific factual errors, procedural concerns, or substantive grounds for reconsideration.

Disagreement with a decision alone does not establish grounds for reversal. Where appropriate, an editor who was not involved in the original decision will assess the appeal.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, or procedural fairness will be considered separately from the manuscript’s scholarly assessment.

Ethical Guidance

The peer-review principles of MACHINERY: Jurnal Teknologi Terapan are informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, particularly their emphasis on confidentiality, impartiality, professional responsibility, disclosure of competing interests, constructive assessment, and timeliness.

Reference

COPE Council. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2, September 2017. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9