Peer Review Process

Publication of articles in SIWAYANG JOURNAL is dependent solely on scientific validity and coherence as judged by our editors and/or peer reviewers, who will also assess whether the writing is comprehensible and whether the work represents a useful contribution to the field. SIWAYANG JOURNAL acknowledges the effort and suggestions made by its reviewers.

Initial evaluation of manuscripts

The Editor will first evaluate all manuscripts submitted within a maximum of 2 weeks. Although rare, it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are those considered insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or fall outside the aims and scope of SIWAYANG JOURNAL. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to expert reviewers for further assessment, a process which usually takes up to 3 weeks.

Type of peer review

Submitted manuscripts are generally reviewed by two to three experts who will evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates already published works, and whether the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. SIWAYANG JOURNAL employs a blind peer review system, where the reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

Other rounds of review may be conducted if the first round is deemed inadequate.

Below are explanations of different review types commonly used in academic publishing:

  • Editorial Review
    This is the initial screening by the editorial team to ensure manuscripts meet basic standards such as relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, and adherence to formatting guidelines before proceeding to peer review.

  • Peer Review
    A critical evaluation by experts in the same field to assess the scientific quality, rigor, and contribution of the manuscript.

  • Anonymous Peer Review
    A review process in which reviewers' identities are kept confidential from the authors to ensure impartial and honest feedback.

  • Double Anonymous Peer Review
    Also known as double-blind review, this method keeps both the reviewers’ and authors’ identities anonymous to each other, reducing potential bias related to author affiliation, gender, or reputation.

Review reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original by clearly stating the objectives and research gap

  • Is methodologically sound

  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines

  • Presents results/findings clearly and supports the conclusions

  • Correctly references previous relevant work

Reviewers are not expected to correct language errors or copyedit manuscripts, as language correction is outside the scope of the peer-review process.

Decision

Reviewers provide recommendations to the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The editors base their decision on these reports and, when necessary, consult members of the Editorial Board. The editor’s decision is final.

Publication

Articles that have passed editorial and peer review and are declared ACCEPTABLE FOR PUBLICATION will receive a Decision Letter from the Editor Team, which includes the publication decision and publication fee invoice (Article Processing Charge, APC) within a maximum of 4 weeks from the submission date.

Becoming a Reviewer

If you are not currently a reviewer for SIWAYANG JOURNAL but would like to be added to our reviewer list, please contact us. Benefits of reviewing include early access to the latest research in related fields, acknowledgment in our reviewer list, and the opportunity to cite your reviewing work as part of your professional development. SIWAYANG JOURNAL reviewers volunteer their expertise to advance science, and no financial compensation is provided.