Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Meteor STIP Marunda undergo the following editorial and peer review process:

1. Initial screening. The editor checks each submission for compliance with the journal’s focus and scope, the author guidelines, and the manuscript template. All manuscripts are screened for similarity using Turnitin; manuscripts with a similarity index above 20% are returned to the authors or rejected.

2. Peer review. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent for single-blind peer review, in which the reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two reviewers with expertise relevant to the topic of the manuscript.

3. Review criteria. Reviewers assess the originality and novelty of the work, the clarity of the research problem, the appropriateness of the methodology, the validity of the results and discussion, the strength of the conclusions, and the quality and currency of the references.

4. Editorial decision. Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor makes one of the following decisions: Accept Submission, Revisions Required (minor revision), Resubmit for Review (major revision), or Decline Submission. Where the reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially, the editor may invite an additional reviewer.

5. Revision. Authors are asked to revise their manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and to submit a point-by-point response. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

6. Final decision and production. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance. Accepted manuscripts then proceed to copyediting, layout, and proofreading before publication.

Review time. The peer review process normally takes one to two months from submission to first decision, depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revision required.

Reviewers are required to treat manuscripts as confidential and to declare any conflict of interest. The use of generative AI tools in preparing review reports is not permitted, in accordance with the journal’s Artificial Intelligence Policy.