Review Process Policy

Jurnal Masyarakat Pariwisata (MP)

Jurnal Masyarakat Pariwisata (MP) applies a peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of all manuscripts considered for publication. The review process aims to evaluate the scientific merit and practical contributions of community service activities, particularly those related to tourism development, community empowerment, and sustainable tourism practices.

All submitted manuscripts are subject to editorial screening and, when considered suitable, peer review by qualified experts in relevant fields.

1. Type of Peer Review

Jurnal Masyarakat Pariwisata (MP) applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts do not contain information that unnecessarily reveals their identities. Reviewers are also required to maintain confidentiality and must not attempt to identify the authors.

The editorial team is responsible for managing the review process and protecting the confidentiality of all parties involved.

2. Stages of the Review Process

The review process consists of the following stages:

2.1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform and must comply with the journal's author guidelines, formatting requirements, publication ethics, and scope.

2.2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

Fits the aims and scope of Jurnal Masyarakat Pariwisata (MP).
Presents relevant community service activities or contributions to community empowerment and tourism development.
Follows the journal's manuscript preparation guidelines.
Demonstrates originality and appropriate citation practices.
Complies with the journal's publication ethics requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements or fall outside the journal's scope may be rejected at this stage or returned to the authors for preliminary revision.

2.3. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research or professional experience, subject expertise, and ability to evaluate community service activities and their outcomes.

The editor seeks to avoid conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers.

2.4. Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and provide comments, recommendations, and suggestions for improvement.

The review focuses on the manuscript's relevance, methodological appropriateness, quality of implementation, evidence of outcomes, contribution to community development, and clarity of presentation.

Reviewers submit their evaluations through the journal's review system or another editorially approved procedure.

2.5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's assessment, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision, subject to final editorial preparation.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions to address reviewers' comments.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revision before it can be reconsidered.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is unsuitable for publication.

The editor makes the final decision. Acceptance is not guaranteed merely because reviewers recommend publication.

2.6. Manuscript Revision

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editor.

Authors should provide a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. If a suggestion is not adopted, the authors should provide a clear and reasoned explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions have been requested.

2.7. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once the manuscript satisfies the journal's requirements, the editor issues a final acceptance decision.

The accepted manuscript proceeds to copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, and publication according to the journal's publication schedule.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using criteria appropriate to community service publications, including:

Relevance and originality: The relevance of the topic to community service, community empowerment, and tourism development, including the originality of the approach.
Problem identification: The clarity of the problems, needs, or opportunities addressed within the target community.
Objectives: The clarity, relevance, and feasibility of the community service objectives.
Methodology and implementation: The appropriateness of the methods, implementation strategy, and activities undertaken.
Community participation: The extent to which target communities, partner organizations, and relevant stakeholders are involved.
Results and outcomes: The clarity and credibility of the reported outputs, outcomes, and benefits, supported by appropriate evidence.
Impact and sustainability: The potential contribution to community capacity, local economic opportunities, tourism development, and long-term sustainability.
Discussion and practical implications: The quality of the interpretation and the usefulness of lessons learned for similar community service initiatives.
References and scholarly quality: The relevance and adequacy of references, appropriate citation practices, and the quality of academic writing.
Ethical compliance: Compliance with publication ethics, appropriate permissions, participant privacy, and other relevant ethical requirements.

4. Reviewer Qualifications and Responsibilities

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and ability to provide objective, constructive, and timely assessments.

Reviewers should have relevant academic qualifications, scholarly publications, professional experience, or demonstrated expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. The editor considers the suitability of each reviewer in relation to the specific topic and the nature of the community service activities reported.

Reviewers are expected to:

Evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently.
Provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based feedback.
Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials.
Disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest.
Avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.
Inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other potential ethical concerns.
Complete reviews within the timeframe agreed upon with the editorial team.

5. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss submitted manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and refrain from participating in the evaluation of manuscripts when their impartiality could reasonably be compromised.

The journal takes appropriate measures to maintain the independence, fairness, and confidentiality of the review process.

6. Review Duration

The duration of the review process depends on the manuscript's subject matter, reviewer availability, the extent of revisions required, and the authors' responsiveness.

The editorial team endeavors to process submissions in a timely manner while maintaining appropriate standards of peer review. Authors will be informed of editorial decisions and any revision deadlines through the journal's OJS platform or official communication channels.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript, or an irregularity in the review process may submit a reasoned appeal to the editor.

Appeals must identify the specific grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant supporting information. The editor or an independent editorial representative will assess the appeal fairly.

The journal may decline appeals that merely express disagreement with a decision without providing substantive grounds for reconsideration.

8. Ethical Standards of Peer Review

Jurnal Masyarakat Pariwisata (MP) expects editors and reviewers to uphold academic integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, and professional conduct throughout the review process.

The journal does not tolerate discrimination, harassment, plagiarism, misuse of confidential information, or attempts to manipulate editorial decisions.

The review process is conducted in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies and recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing.

9. Final Editorial Authority

The editor-in-chief or an authorized editorial representative holds final responsibility for publication decisions. These decisions are based on the manuscript's quality, relevance, ethical compliance, reviewers' recommendations, and the journal's editorial standards.

The journal reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not meet its requirements, even when positive reviewer recommendations have been received.

Through this review process, Jurnal Masyarakat Pariwisata (MP) seeks to publish credible, relevant, and impactful articles that contribute to the advancement of community service practices and tourism development.