Peer_Reviewers

Peer Review Policy

Selat Melaka Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, transparency, and ethical publishing. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous and impartial peer review process to ensure originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

1. Peer Review Model

Selat Melaka Journal adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review model. Under this system:

  1. Authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers

  2. Reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors

This model is implemented to minimize bias and ensure fair and objective assessment of scholarly work.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team to assess:

  1. Compliance with the journal’s focus and scope

  2. Completeness of submission requirements

  3. Adherence to author guidelines and formatting standards

  4. Plagiarism and AI screening using Turnitin

  5. Ethical compliance, including disclosure statements

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to authors for correction or rejected without external review.

3. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Reviewers are selected based on:

  1. Academic expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area

  2. Research background and publication record

  3. Experience in peer review

  4. Absence of conflicts of interest

Reviewers may be drawn from national or international institutions to ensure diverse academic perspectives.

4. Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers.
If reviewers’ recommendations are substantially divergent, the editor may:

  1. Appoint an additional reviewer, or

  2. Make an editorial decision based on careful consideration of all reviews

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations

  2. Assess the manuscript solely on academic merit

  3. Offer clear suggestions for improvement

  4. Identify potential ethical issues, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or improper citations

  5. Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process

6. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on, but not limited to, the following criteria:

  1. Originality, novelty, and significance of the research

  2. Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope

  3. Adequacy and relevance of the literature review

  4. Clarity of research objectives and questions

  5. Appropriateness and rigor of research methodology

  6. Validity and reliability of data analysis

  7. Depth and coherence of discussion and conclusions

  8. Quality of academic writing and presentation

  9. Ethical considerations and compliance

7. Review Timeline

Reviewers are generally given 2–4 weeks to complete their reviews.
Authors are expected to submit revised manuscripts within:

  1. 1–2 weeks for minor revisions

  2. 2–4 weeks for major revisions

Extensions may be granted upon reasonable request.

8. Decision-Making Process

Based on reviewers’ reports, the editor may reach one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept without revision

  2. Accept with minor revision

  3. Revise and resubmit (major revision)

  4. Reject

The final decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned handling editor.

9. Revision and Re-Review

Authors must submit:

  1. A revised manuscript

  2. A detailed response to reviewers’ comments (point-by-point)

Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly in cases of major revisions.

10. Confidentiality and Data Protection

All manuscripts and review materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not:

  1. Share manuscript content with third parties

  2. Use unpublished data for personal or professional advantage

  3. Upload manuscripts to publicly accessible platforms or AI tools

11. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including:

  1. Personal or professional relationships with the authors

  2. Financial or institutional interests related to the manuscript

If a conflict exists, reviewers are required to decline the review invitation.

12. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to ethical standards by:

  1. Avoiding biased or discriminatory language

  2. Respecting intellectual independence and diversity of perspectives

  3. Reporting suspected ethical misconduct to the editor

13. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers may use AI tools only for limited technical assistance, such as language assessment or plagiarism detection, in compliance with the journal’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy. AI tools must not replace independent scholarly evaluation.

14. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request with clear justification. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appointed editorial committee. The journal reserves the right to uphold the original decision.

15. Acknowledgment of Reviewers

Selat Melaka Journal recognizes the valuable contributions of reviewers and may acknowledge reviewers periodically, while maintaining confidentiality of individual review assignments.