Peer Review Process
Jurnal Syntax Transformation is a double blind peer reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the Jurnal Syntax Transformation for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility of the papers. The peer review at Jurnal Syntax Transformation proceeds in 9 steps with the description as follows.
1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). But in order to facilitate authors, Jurnal Syntax Transformation temporarily also accepts paper submissions by email.
2. Editorial Office Assessment
The submitted paper is first assessed by Jurnal Syntax Transformation Journal editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable with the Journal focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper which passes this step will be checked by Turnitin to identify any plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
4. Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor sends out invitations to individuals he believes will be appropriate reviewers (also known as referees) based on expertise, proximity of research interests, and no consideration of conflicts of interest. The peer review process in the Jurnal Syntax Transformation involves a community of experts in the narrowly defined fields of Humanities and social sciences, political science, education, philosophy, economics that are qualified and able to carry out impartiality fairly. Impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review used in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the identity of the author, on the contrary, the author does not know the identity of the reviewer. The paper was sent to reviewers anonymously.
5. Response to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitations to be contrary to their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or reject. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask a potential reviewer for advice from an alternative reviewer, when he or she refuses to review.
6.Review Conducted
Reviewers allocate time to read the paper several times. The first readings were used to form an initial impression of the work. If a major problem is found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper a few more times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept, or reject it, or with a revision request (usually marked as major or minor) before being reconsidered
7.Journal Evaluating Reviews
The Editor-in-Chief and the handling editor consider all reviews returned before making an overall decision. If the review differs considerably between the two reviewers, the handling editor may invite additional reviewers to get additional opinions before making a decision
8.Decision Communicated
The editor sends an email of the decision to the author including the relevant reviewer's comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the relevant authors to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also sent an email or letter informing them of the results of their review.
9.Final Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to copy-editing. If the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers' comments and instructions.
After revision has been made, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor.
If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is considered to be accepted. Leveraging the feedback from the peer review process, the Editor will make the final publication decision. The review process will take approximately 1 to 2 weeks. The category of decisions includes, The accepted papers will be published online and all are freely available as downloadable pdf files.
