Peer Review Process

PERCIPIENCE conducts all peer review under a double-blind review model, overseen directly by the editorial board. Under this arrangement, neither the reviewer's nor the author's identity is revealed to the other party. Anyone invited to review a manuscript for PERCIPIENCE is expected to follow the journal's publication ethics guidelines. All submissions are first screened by the editors and then evaluated by at least two independent reviewers through a double-blind peer review process.

 

General Requirements

Each submitted manuscript is evaluated by two (2) independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise through a double-blind peer review process.

Review timelines can vary depending on how quickly reviewers complete their evaluation and submit feedback, but a single review round typically takes two to four (2–4) weeks. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and how closely their specialization matches the manuscript's subject matter.

 

Review Context

To keep publication standards high, PERCIPIENCE reviewers assess the quality and rigor of a manuscript's content, following the criteria set out in the journal's Review Guidelines:

- Title Is the title appropriate, concise, and does it clearly reflect the article's content?

- Abstract Does it grab the reader's attention and encourage them to read further? Is it brief, clear, and complete enough to capture the substance of the whole article? The abstract must be provided in both Indonesian and English.

- Introduction Are the problem, scope, and purpose of the study stated clearly? Does it make the paper's novelty or contribution evident?

- Literature Review Does it draw on relevant approaches, theories, or concepts to ground the analysis?

- Method Are the research procedures explained clearly? Is the method used to address the problem well described?

- Results and Discussion Are the results and analysis supported by tables and figures where appropriate? Is there a clear link between the results and the underlying theoretical concepts? Does the discussion address both the theoretical and practical implications of the findings?

- Conclusion Does it offer a summary and recommendations arising from the research? Do the recommendations logically follow from the study conducted? Does the summary answer the research problem posed at the outset?

- References Are references cited according to APA Style, 7th Edition? Are they drawn primarily from sources published within the last 10 years?

Decision Once a reviewer agrees to take on a manuscript, they can download the article and any supplementary files, evaluate the submission in full, and upload their comments for both the editors and the authors to see. This feedback helps strengthen the manuscript and keeps the review process transparent. Reviewers are then asked to recommend one of the following outcomes:

• Accept the manuscript without changes
• Accept the manuscript with minor revisions
• Accept the manuscript with major revisions, along with the necessary changes as recommendations
• Reject the manuscript

 

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

To protect the confidentiality of the review process, reviewers may not upload any part of a submitted manuscript to external generative AI tools under any circumstances. Doing so is treated as a serious ethical and confidentiality violation.

Every review report must reflect the reviewer's own independent judgement. Using generative AI to analyze the manuscript or draft the review report is not permitted, since it undermines the expert human evaluation that peer review depends on.