Peer Review Process

Irsyaduna: Jurnal Studi Kemahasiswaan applies a double-blind peer review process to maintain the quality, originality, validity, and academic integrity of published articles. In this process, the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Every manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers with relevant expertise. The reviewers provide independent scholarly assessments and recommendations, while the final decision regarding publication remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor.

1. Manuscript Submission

The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript through the official online submission system of Irsyaduna: Jurnal Studi Kemahasiswaan using the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript complies with the journal's Author Guidelines, article template, publication ethics, and submission requirements before completing the submission.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team before being sent for external peer review. At this stage, the editors evaluate whether:

• The manuscript is relevant to the journal's aims and scope;
• The manuscript follows the journal's Author Guidelines and article template;
• The required sections of the manuscript are complete;
• The manuscript demonstrates an acceptable level of academic and methodological quality;
• The manuscript presents sufficient originality and scholarly relevance; and
• The manuscript complies with applicable publication ethics requirements.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, do not meet basic scholarly standards, or substantially fail to comply with the submission requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected without proceeding to external peer review.

3. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

Manuscripts that proceed beyond the initial assessment are subject to similarity screening using Turnitin or another appropriate similarity-detection tool in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Screening Policy.

The similarity report is evaluated by the editorial team. The journal does not rely solely on the numerical similarity percentage; editors may also consider the source, context, concentration, and nature of the detected similarities.

4. Editor Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor evaluates the manuscript to determine whether it has sufficient scholarly quality, originality, methodological adequacy, and relevance to proceed to external peer review.

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage when fundamental problems are identified that are unlikely to be resolved through the normal peer review and revision process.

5. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

Manuscripts approved for external review are assigned to at least two reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject and methodological approach of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected by considering:

• Relevant academic and research expertise;
• Appropriate knowledge of the manuscript's subject area;
• Ability to provide an independent scholarly evaluation;
• Availability to complete the review within the required period; and
• Absence of known conflicts of interest.

Invited reviewers may accept or decline the review invitation. When declining, reviewers may suggest other qualified experts; however, the decision to appoint any reviewer remains with the editorial team.

6. Double-Blind Peer Review

Irsyaduna: Jurnal Studi Kemahasiswaan uses a double-blind peer review system. Reviewers do not receive the authors' identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript in accordance with the journal's Reviewers Guidelines, including the quality of:

• Title, abstract, and keywords;
• Research background and scholarly context;
• Research gap, novelty, and contribution;
• Research methodology;
• Results and supporting evidence;
• Interpretation and discussion of findings;
• Conclusions and implications;
• References and citations;
• Academic writing and presentation; and
• Research and publication integrity.

Reviewer comments should be objective, constructive, specific, academically justified, and focused on improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

7. Reviewer Recommendation and Editorial Evaluation

After completing the review, reviewers submit their comments and recommendations through the journal's online review system. Recommendations may include:

• Accept Submission;
• Revisions Required;
• Resubmit for Review; or
• Decline Submission.

The Editor evaluates the review reports and recommendations before reaching an editorial decision. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the final decision.

If the reviewers provide substantially different assessments, the Editor may evaluate the differing arguments and, when necessary, invite an additional reviewer before making a decision.

8. Editorial Decision and Author Revision

The corresponding author is notified of the editorial decision through the journal's OJS platform. Relevant reviewer comments are communicated anonymously to the author.

When revisions are required, authors should:

• Carefully address the comments provided by the reviewers and editors;
• Revise the manuscript accordingly;
• Provide a clear response to the reviewers' comments where requested;
• Explain respectfully when a particular suggestion has not been followed and provide an academic justification; and
• Submit the revised manuscript within the revision period specified by the journal.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial revisions are required. For limited or minor revisions, the Editor may evaluate the revised manuscript directly.

9. Final Decision and Publication

After the revision and review process has been satisfactorily completed, the Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor makes the final editorial decision.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the journal's production process, which may include copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, metadata verification, and final publication.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not prevent the journal from requesting necessary technical, ethical, linguistic, citation, or formatting corrections before final publication.

Confidentiality and Publication Ethics

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and all information obtained during the peer review process. Unpublished manuscript content, research data, participant information, or other confidential materials must not be disclosed, distributed, or used for personal advantage.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. Where an appropriate independent review cannot be provided, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

Generative AI in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must comply with the journal's Generative AI Policy. Submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, or confidential information must not be uploaded to publicly accessible Generative AI tools for manuscript evaluation.

Generative AI must not replace the independent scholarly judgment of reviewers or editors in evaluating manuscripts or making editorial recommendations and decisions.