Peer Review Process

Jurnal Fajar Nusantara applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential to maintain objectivity and scientific integrity.

Stages of the Peer Review Process:

1. Initial Screening by the Editor

  • The manuscript is reviewed for its relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, and for the completeness of supporting documents.

  • The editor may reject the manuscript at this stage if it is irrelevant or does not meet minimum academic writing standards.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

  • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be sent to two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

  • Reviewers are selected based on expertise, publication record, and institutional affiliation.

3. Evaluation by Reviewers
Reviewers will assess the following aspects:

  • Originality and scientific contribution

  • Research methodology

  • Data analysis and clarity of results

  • Relevance to recent literature

  • Writing structure and language use

Reviewers will provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accepted without revision

  • Accepted with minor revisions

  • Accepted with major revisions

  • Rejected

4. Editorial Decision

  • The editor will consider the reviewers’ feedback and make the final decision.

  • If necessary, the manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation after revision.

5. Author Revisions

  • Authors are given a specific timeframe (usually 2–4 weeks) to revise the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments.

  • A response letter addressing each reviewer comment must accompany the revised manuscript.

6. Final Decision

  • After the revision process, the editor will make a final decision: accept for publication or reject.

  • Accepted manuscripts will proceed to final editing and publication.

Additional Policies:

  • Jurnal Fajar Nusantara emphasizes objectivity, transparency, and confidentiality throughout the review process.

  • Reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions.

  • Authors have the right to suggest or request the exclusion of specific reviewers, with a clear justification (e.g., conflict of interest).