Peer Review Process

GOTAVA: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat applies a rigorous, fair, confidential, and transparent peer-review process to ensure the originality, methodological quality, ethical integrity, and scholarly relevance of all manuscripts considered for publication.

1. Peer Review Model

GOTAVA applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial assessment is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area, methodological approach, or context.

Authors submit one complete manuscript containing the authors’ names, affiliations, corresponding-author information, acknowledgments, funding information, author contribution statements, and other required declarations. Authors are not required to prepare or upload a separate anonymized manuscript.

Before the manuscript is sent for external peer review, the Editorial Team prepares an anonymized review version by removing or concealing names, affiliations, contact information, acknowledgments, funding information, author contribution statements, and other information that may directly disclose the authors’ identities. The complete submitted manuscript is retained in the journal’s editorial system for administrative and editorial purposes.

Authors should nevertheless avoid unnecessary self-identifying statements in the main text. Self-citations may be retained when academically relevant but should be written neutrally so that the scholarly context remains clear without unnecessarily revealing authorship.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment. The journal aims to complete this stage within approximately one to two weeks, although additional time may be required when clarification or preliminary correction is necessary.

The Editorial Team evaluates:

• Alignment with the journal’s aims, focus, and scope
• Conformity with the appropriate article type
• Originality and potential scholarly contribution
• Clarity of the research problem or identified community need
• Methodological and analytical adequacy
• Ethical compliance
• Completeness of submission documents
• Adherence to the journal’s structure, formatting, citation, and reference requirements
• Clarity and general quality of presentation

Manuscripts may be declined without external peer review when they:

• Fall outside the journal’s focus and scope
• Lack sufficient originality or scholarly contribution
• Present serious methodological or ethical concerns
• Consist primarily of descriptive activity reports without adequate evaluation or analysis
• Do not meet the journal’s minimum academic and editorial standards
• Remain substantially noncompliant with the Author Guidelines

Manuscripts requiring limited technical or structural corrections may be returned to the authors for preliminary revision before further editorial consideration.

3. Similarity and Publication-Integrity Screening

Similarity screening is conducted during the initial editorial assessment and before external peer review.

A similarity index exceeding 20% may trigger further editorial examination but does not automatically establish plagiarism or result in rejection. The Editorial Team evaluates the nature, source, location, concentration, and extent of textual overlap before making a decision.

The assessment considers whether identified similarities originate from:

• Properly cited quotations
• Reference lists
• Commonly used methodological terminology
• Standard institutional or ethical statements
• Previously published work by other authors
• Inappropriate text recycling
• Duplicate or redundant publication
• Unattributed copying

A manuscript with a similarity index below 20% may still be rejected when substantive plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, or other publication-integrity concerns are identified.

Additional similarity screening is not routinely required after every revision. However, the editor may initiate further screening whenever a specific concern arises during peer review, revision, copyediting, or production.

4. Reviewer Selection and Author-Suggested Reviewer

The handling editor selects reviewers based on:

• Relevant subject-matter or methodological expertise
• Scholarly experience and publication record
• Independence from the authors
• Absence of actual or potential conflicts of interest
• Availability to undertake the review within a reasonable period
• Capacity to provide an objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluation

Authors are required to suggest one potential reviewer when submitting a manuscript. The suggested reviewer must:

• Possess expertise relevant to the manuscript
• Be affiliated with an institution different from those of all authors
• Have a verifiable institutional email address
• Have no personal, professional, financial, supervisory, or academic relationship that could compromise independence
• Not be a current or recent research collaborator of any author
• Not have co-authored a publication with any author within the preceding three years
• Not have been involved in the preparation of the manuscript

Authors must provide the suggested reviewer’s full name, institutional affiliation, country, institutional email address, area of expertise, and ORCID or Scopus Author ID when available.

The Editorial Team is under no obligation to invite the suggested reviewer and retains full authority over reviewer selection. When an author-suggested reviewer is appointed, at least one additional reviewer must be selected independently by the editor.

Authors must not contact suggested or appointed reviewers regarding the submitted manuscript before or during the editorial process.

5. External Peer Review

Each manuscript that proceeds to external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

The duration of external peer review varies according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need to invite replacement or additional reviewers, and whether further methodological, statistical, ethical, or technical assessment is required. GOTAVA therefore does not guarantee a fixed peer-review or first-decision time.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Originality and significance of the contribution
• Adequacy of the theoretical, conceptual, or evidence base
• Clarity of the objectives or community problems addressed
• Appropriateness and transparency of the methodology
• Validity and reliability of the findings
• Quality of analysis and interpretation
• Coherence among objectives, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions
• Compliance with applicable ethical standards
• Engagement with relevant and current scholarly literature
• Scientific, practical, managerial, policy, or societal implications
• Clarity, organization, and overall academic presentation

For original research articles, reviewers assess whether the manuscript presents novel, methodologically sound, and applicable evidence with a clearly articulated scholarly contribution.

For community service articles, reviewers additionally assess whether the manuscript:

• Is based on a clearly identified community need
• Presents an evidence-informed and systematically designed intervention
• Defines its participants, beneficiaries, setting, and implementation procedures
• Reports measurable and appropriately evaluated outcomes
• Critically discusses achievements, limitations, and unintended outcomes
• Demonstrates practical relevance beyond merely documenting activities
• Presents a credible pathway toward sustainability, adaptation, transferability, or replication

When necessary, the editor may seek additional methodological, statistical, ethical, or technical assessment. Such assessment supplements rather than automatically replaces the reports of the principal reviewers.

6. Reviewer Confidentiality, Ethics, and Use of AI

Submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential.

Reviewers must:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively
• Disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest
• Decline the invitation when the manuscript falls outside their expertise
• Avoid using unpublished material for personal, professional, academic, or financial advantage
• Refrain from contacting authors directly
• Not share or delegate the review without prior editorial approval
• Promptly inform the editor of suspected ethical or publication-integrity concerns

Reviewers and editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, tables, figures, supplementary materials, or identifiable excerpts to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence tools. AI tools must not replace independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers and editors remain fully responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, integrity, and originality of their evaluations and decisions.

7. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the decision by numerical voting. The final editorial decision is normally made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers’ reports, the recommendation of the handling editor, the manuscript’s compliance with journal standards, and independent academic judgment.

When the Editor-in-Chief has an actual or potential conflict of interest, including authorship or direct involvement in the submitted work, the manuscript and final decision are assigned to an appropriately qualified independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors or manuscript.

Acceptance is not automatically granted when both reviewers provide favorable recommendations. Similarly, rejection is not determined solely by one unfavorable recommendation. The editor considers the quality, consistency, relevance, and substance of the reviewers’ arguments.

When reviewer reports differ substantially, the handling editor may:

• Assess the points of disagreement
• Request clarification from the reviewers
• Invite a third independent reviewer
• Seek additional methodological or subject expertise
• Consult another qualified member of the Editorial Board

The purpose of an additional review is to support a fair and academically justified decision rather than merely to obtain a majority opinion.

Authors receive the editorial decision and anonymized reviewer comments through the journal’s online submission system.

8. Revision and Re-evaluation

Authors are generally given:

• Two weeks to complete minor revisions
• Four weeks to complete major revisions

Authors must submit:

1. A revised manuscript incorporating the required revisions
2. A detailed point-by-point response to all reviewer and editor comments
3. A version showing or clearly identifying the revisions, when requested

Authors are not required to anonymize the revised manuscript. When a revised manuscript is returned to reviewers, the Editorial Team prepares or verifies the anonymized review version before it is sent for re-evaluation.

Each reviewer and editor comment should be addressed individually. When authors do not adopt a recommendation, they must provide a clear, respectful, and academically supported explanation.

Requests for additional revision time may be considered when submitted before the deadline and accompanied by reasonable justification. Failure to submit the revision within the specified period without prior communication may result in closure of the submission.

Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the handling editor. Major revisions are normally returned to the original reviewers when further external assessment is necessary. A new reviewer may be appointed when an original reviewer is unavailable or additional expertise is required.

A manuscript may undergo more than one revision round. An invitation to revise does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

9. Final Acceptance and Editorial Independence

A manuscript is accepted only when the responsible editor is satisfied that:

• Substantive reviewer and editor concerns have been adequately addressed
• The manuscript meets the journal’s scientific and ethical standards
• The conclusions are supported by the evidence presented
• The manuscript is consistent with the journal’s focus and scope
• All required declarations, references, tables, figures, and supplementary materials are complete

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, academic position, professional status, personal relationships, or financial considerations.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or members of the Editorial Board are subject to the same requirements as other submissions. Such manuscripts are handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors. The submitting editor is excluded from reviewer selection, editorial evaluation, and final decision-making.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantive factual misunderstanding, procedural error, or undisclosed conflict of interest. An appeal must present specific academic or procedural grounds and does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, unreasonable delay, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or the administration of the peer-review process may also be submitted to the journal.

Whenever practicable, appeals and complaints are evaluated by an editor or authorized representative who was not directly involved in the original decision or matter. Appeals and complaints are handled in accordance with the journal’s applicable publication-ethics procedures.

11. Copyediting, Production, and Publication

After final acceptance, manuscripts proceed through:

• Language and technical copyediting
• Verification of references and article metadata
• Layout preparation
• Author proofreading
• DOI registration
• Online publication

Based on the journal’s publication history, the post-acceptance production stage is generally completed within approximately one to four weeks, although additional time may occasionally be required when substantial production corrections or author clarification are necessary.

GOTAVA implements a “Publish as You Go” model. Accepted articles are published in the current issue with an “In Progress” status after completing copyediting and production, without waiting for all articles assigned to the issue to be completed.

12. Estimated Editorial Timeline

The editorial timeline varies among manuscripts because peer review is an evaluative process rather than a fixed-duration service.

Based on GOTAVA’s published article history, manuscripts are typically published within approximately two to five months from initial receipt. The historical overall processing time averages approximately three to four months, although manuscripts requiring substantial revision, additional reviewers, multiple review rounds, methodological or ethical clarification, or other complex editorial consideration may require a longer period.

Editorial Stage	Typical or Expected Time
Initial editorial assessment and similarity screening	Approximately 1–2 weeks
External peer review and editorial assessment	Variable according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and review rounds
Minor revision by authors	Normally up to 2 weeks
Major revision by authors	Normally up to 4 weeks
Editorial re-evaluation	Depends on the extent of revision and whether further external review is required
Copyediting, production, and online publication after acceptance	Generally approximately 1–4 weeks
Overall receipt-to-publication	Typically approximately 2–5 months

These durations describe normal editorial practice and historical journal performance. They do not constitute guaranteed decision or publication times.

The actual processing time may be affected by manuscript quality, reviewer availability, the complexity of the work, the number of revision rounds, ethical or authorship clarifications, and the responsiveness of authors and reviewers.

The speed of processing does not influence the editorial decision. GOTAVA does not guarantee acceptance, accelerated review, or publication within a fixed period.