All submissions can be done through an open journal system (OJS). Each submission to Infotron undergoes a thorough evaluation by the editorial team to ensure it adheres to the journal's author guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are declined without further review. Submissions that pass this initial check are screened for plagiarism, and those with an acceptable Similarity Index are advanced to a double-blind review process, ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Each article is assessed by a minimum of two reviewers in the field. Following the review, manuscripts are sent back to authors for any required revisions, and the final publication decision is made by the editors, based on reviewers' recommendations and a concluding plagiarism check.

Reviewer Guidelines

When reviewing the article, please consider the following guidelines:

Title and Abstract

• Title: is it clearly illustrating the article?
• Abstract: is it well writen and having ability to making good impression (stand-alone)? 

Introduction

Reviewer should evaluate whether the introduction already describe the importance and the uniqueness of the topic or not. Authors should provide background material and stated the problem or question, and tell the reader the purpose of your study. Usually, the reason is to fill a gap in the knowledge or to answer a previously unanswered question.

Preview Studies

• If the study had been previously done by other authors, it is still eligible for publication?
• Is the article is fairly new, fairly deep, and interesting to be published?

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 

Literature review investigates the gap that will be exposed and solved. The flow of all the ideas are required to be clear, linked, well-crafted and well developed. It serves as the source of the research question and especially the base or the hypotheses that respond to the research objective.

Methodology

• Does the author accurately describe how the data is collected?
• Is the theoretical basis or reference used appropriate for this study?
• Is the exposure design suitable for the answer to the question?
• Is there a decent enough information for you to imitate the research?
• Does the article identify following procedures?
• Are there any new methods? If there is a new method, does the author explain it in details?
• Is there any appropriate sampling?
• Have the tools and materials used been adequately explained? and
• Does the article exposure describe what type of data is recorded; right in describing the measurement?

Results

The results of article should be clear with the appropiate analysis and statistical tools. Reviewer should ensure that results are presented in a logical order, do not contained duplicate data among figures, tables, and text (or re-state much of the data from a table in the text of the manuscript), and Include the results of statistical analyses in the text, usually by providing p values wherever statistically significant differences are described.

Discussion and Conclusion

• The conclusion should answer/explain the research problem
• Consistency in result, discussion, and conclusion
• Authors should mention and explain any inconclusive result
• Authors should compare the research results with other previous ones
• Authors should explain the uniqueness or the contradict reason (if any) with other previous ones
• The conclusion should explain how a better scientific research to be followed-up
• Authors should  describe the limitations and suggest future studies that need to be carried out

References

The references cited in the articles should adhere to the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) citation style, ensuring consistency and clarity in citation formatting. Additionally, authors are encouraged to use recent references, ideally published within the last 10 years, to reflect current advancements and developments in the field.

Decision

Once reviewers agree to conduct a review, they can download the article and any supplementary files, assess the manuscript thoroughly, and upload their review comments for both the editors and authors. This feedback aids in refining the manuscript and ensures a transparent review process. Then, they are expected to provide recommendations regarding the quality of articles with the following options:

• Manuscript can be accepted without changes
• Manuscript can be accepted with minor revisions
• Manuscript can be accepted with major revisions with the necessary changes as recommendations
• Manuscript is rejected

The review must be completed within 2-4 weeks. If the extension of time is needed, please inform the editorial team or contact on infotron@unisma.ac.id