Peer Review Policy

Abdimas Serayu: Journal of Community Service · Abd. Serayu J. Community Serv. · Online ISSN 3124-1581 · Published by Zahira Studies · Two issues per year (August and November)

1. Purpose

Abdimas Serayu is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes the outcomes of community service and engagement activities (Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat). Peer review ensures that published articles are sound, original, ethically conducted, and genuinely useful to communities and to practitioners of community development. This policy explains how manuscripts are evaluated, what is expected of authors, reviewers, and editors, and how decisions are made.

2. Type of Peer Review

Abdimas Serayu uses a double-blind peer review process, with at least two independent reviewers for every manuscript. The identities of authors are withheld from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are withheld from authors, throughout the review process. Authors must therefore prepare their manuscripts without names, affiliations, acknowledgements, or other self-identifying references in the main text and file properties. Author details are provided separately during submission. Names of community partners, villages, or sites may remain where they are needed to understand the work, provided they do not reveal the authors' own institution.

3. Scope of Review

All original research articles, review papers, and case studies submitted to the journal are subject to peer review. Editorials, announcements, and other editorial notes may be published at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief without external review.

4. The Review Process

4.1 Initial Screening (Editorial Check)

Every submission is first assessed by the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor for:

fit with the journal's aims and scope in community development and community service;
compliance with the author guidelines and manuscript template;
completeness of the submission (abstract, references, ethics and consent statements, where applicable);
basic scientific and language quality; and
originality, using similarity-detection software such as Turnitin or iThenticate.

Manuscripts that are out of scope, incomplete, of insufficient quality, or show unacceptable levels of text overlap may be rejected at this stage without external review, or returned to the authors for correction before review begins.

4.2 Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned to a handling editor, who invites at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, experience in community service or the relevant field, and absence of conflicts of interest. Additional reviewers may be invited when the topic is interdisciplinary or when reviewers' assessments diverge significantly.

4.3 Evaluation by Reviewers

Reviewers assess each manuscript against the following criteria:

Relevance and significance: Does the work address a real community need and contribute to community development and sustainable development?
Program design: Are the problem, needs assessment, target community, and objectives clearly defined?
Method and implementation: Are the activities, approach, and community involvement described in enough detail to be understood and replicated?
Evidence of outcomes: Are the results and impact supported by data, evaluation, or credible observation?
Sustainability and replicability: Can the program continue after the project ends or be adapted elsewhere?
Ethics: Were informed consent, community permission, and the protection of participants' privacy and dignity respected?
Literature and context: Is related work adequately and fairly covered?
Presentation: Is the manuscript clearly organized and well written, and are conclusions supported by the results?

Reviewers submit a written report with comments for the authors and a recommendation to the editor.

4.4 Review Timeline

Reviewers are asked to return their reports within two to three weeks of accepting an invitation. The journal aims to give authors a first decision within four to eight weeks of submission. Actual timing may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript, and the editorial office works to keep manuscripts on schedule for the August and November issues.

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and their own assessment, the handling editor recommends, and the Editor-in-Chief makes, one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted as is or with only minor editorial changes.
Minor Revision: The manuscript is acceptable pending small changes. Revised versions are typically checked by the editor.
Major Revision: Substantial changes are required. The revised manuscript is normally returned to the original reviewers.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in Abdimas Serayu.

The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority over publication decisions. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit of the work and its relevance to the journal, and are never influenced by the authors' nationality, gender, institution, seniority, or other personal characteristics.

6. Revisions and Resubmission

Authors who receive a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, clearly indicating the changes made or explaining why a suggestion was not adopted. Revisions are expected within the period stated in the decision letter (normally two to four weeks); extensions may be requested from the editorial office. A manuscript may undergo more than one round of revision before a final decision is reached.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe a decision was based on a misunderstanding, factual error, or procedural unfairness may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision, with a detailed justification and responses to the reviewers' points. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult an editor or reviewer not previously involved. The outcome of the appeal is final. Complaints about the review process may be sent to the editorial office through the Contact page.

8. Responsibilities

8.1 Reviewers

Treat the manuscript and all related material as strictly confidential, and do not share, copy, or use its content for personal advantage.
Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback, avoiding personal criticism of the authors.
Decline the invitation promptly if they lack the necessary expertise, cannot meet the deadline, or have a conflict of interest.
Alert the editor if they identify the authors or suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or other ethical concerns.
Not use generative AI tools to evaluate or write reviews in a way that exposes confidential manuscript content. Any limited use of AI for language editing of the review must not involve uploading the manuscript.

8.2 Authors

Submit original work that is not under consideration elsewhere and has not been published previously.
Anonymize the manuscript in line with the double-blind process.
Obtain informed consent and the necessary permissions from community participants and partners, including for photographs and personal data, and report them in the manuscript.
Respond to reviewers' comments honestly, courteously, and on time.
Disclose any use of generative AI tools in the preparation of the manuscript, in accordance with the journal's publication ethics statement.

8.3 Editors

Evaluate manuscripts fairly, impartially, and on intellectual merit only.
Maintain the confidentiality of submissions and of the identities of authors and reviewers during review.
Recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest, including those authored by colleagues, family members, or members of the same institution. Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled by an independent editor, with the author excluded from all decision-making.
Ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and communicated clearly.

9. Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the review process must disclose any financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationships that could reasonably be seen as influencing their judgement. Reviewers should not be from the same institution as the authors, have co-authored with them in recent years, or have a direct competing interest. Authors may suggest or exclude potential reviewers, but the journal is not obliged to follow these suggestions.

10. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. They must not be shared with or discussed with anyone outside the review process, except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewer reports and correspondence are kept confidential, and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors.

11. Research and Publication Ethics

Abdimas Serayu follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Suspected misconduct, such as plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, redundant publication, authorship disputes, or undisclosed conflicts of interest, is handled according to the journal's Publication Ethics statement. Where misconduct is confirmed, the journal may reject the manuscript, publish a correction or retraction, and notify the authors' institution.

12. Contact

Questions about this policy or the status of a submission can be directed to the editorial office through the journal's Contact page.