Peer Review Process

1. General Overview of Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to this journal (Journal of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Management) must follow Focus and Scope and Author Guidelines of this journal. The submitted manuscripts must fulfill scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope of this journal.

Articles published in Journal of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Management are reviewed first by at least two or more reviewers before being published. By default, the review method used is blind peer-review where reviewers can still find out the author's identity. However, if the writer wants a double-blind peer-review process, we may provide it as authors request. We really appreciate the participation of reviewers because the quality of the article can be maintained because the reviewers work voluntarily. The decision to accept whether or not an article is made by the Chief Editor through the Editor's Board is based on recommendations or comments from the reviewers. Plagiarism screening of texts submitted to this journal is carried out with the help of Google Scholar or Turnitin apps. The more plagiarism, the article will be immediately rejected (if more than 20% does not include a bibliography). All manuscripts submitted to this journal must be written in good English. Authors for whom English is not their native language are encouraged to have their paper checked before submission for grammar and clarity. 

The final decision of manuscript acceptance is solely made by Editor in Chief and Associate Editor according to reviewers' critical comments. The final decision of the manuscript is solely based on the Editor's final review which considering peer-reviewers comments (but not solely by Reviewer).

2. Spesific Overview of Peer-Review Process

Reviewers will be asked to provide comments in a detailed and constructive manner where the comments will be the basis for consideration for editors to reject or accept articles that have been submitted. Some things that need attention from the reviewer are as follows:

a. Originality and significance

Reviewers are asked to discuss the originality of the findings submitted in an article. In addition, reviewers should see whether the findings can significantly influence the scientific community. If the reviewer finds the same work as the article being reviewed, the reviewer can provide suggestions or criticism to improve the way the research results are delivered.

b. The novelty of the theoretical approach and how to discuss the problems

Reviewers are asked to discuss the novelty of the theoretical approach and the way the authors discuss the results of research to solve problems. This novelty element can usually be seen in the introduction section as an introduction to the urgency of the research that has been done.

c. Strengths and weaknesses of the method used

Reviewers are expected to be able to assess the method used. Statistical analysis or other analytical methods that affect the interpretation of results should be criticized in order to improve the quality of the article being reviewed.

d. Reliability of the appearance of research results and conclusions

Reviewers are expected to be able to assess the reliability of the research results and conclusions obtained. This reliability can be assessed through the completeness of the analysis and the data that has been obtained.

e. Layout alignment with the guidelines

Alignment with the guidelines will make it easier for editors to do the editing and lay-outing process. Many writers often ignore this and only format their writing incompletely and perfectly according to the guidelines given. Reviewers can assess this but the main focus is on the content and some previous points.

f. Suggestion and feedback

When found several errors or shortcomings of an article, the reviewer is expected to be able to show clearly, which parts should be improved and what needs to be done to improve the quality of the article.

3. Confidentiality

For reviewers, we request that no articles or research results be disseminated under review. If you are not willing to maintain this policy, we would appreciate if you, as a prospective reviewer, give other prospective reviewer that are more suitable in interest or expertise to the editorial board.

4. Other Technical Problems

Reviewers are expected to return articles that have been commented before the deadline that has been determined. If you need extra time to do the review, the reviewer is expected to immediately contact the editorial board. The results of the review can be submitted online through our OJS. However, if you experience difficulties in returning the results of the review, the results of the review can be sent via email: xxxxx@gmail.com