Peer Review Proces

JURNAL KIMIA VALENSI • EDITORIAL QUALITY ASSURANCE

Peer Review Process

Transparent editorial assessment, independent scientific evaluation, and double-blind peer review to ensure originality, methodological rigor, and scholarly contribution in chemical sciences.

Peer Review Policy

Jurnal Kimia VALENSI is a peer-reviewed, open-access scientific journal published by the Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. The journal has published scholarly articles since 2015 and issues two regular editions annually, in May and November.

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Kimia VALENSI undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their relevance, originality, scientific quality, ethical compliance, and conformity with the journal's author guidelines.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process involving at least two qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the submitted research.

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merit of the manuscript, reviewer evaluations, the adequacy of author revisions, and the journal's publication standards. Acceptance is not guaranteed by completing the review process.

Double-Blind Peer Review Model

≥ 2 Expert Reviewers

~8 Weeks Estimated Review Time

May & November Regular Publication Issues

1. Editorial Screening and Initial Assessment

Upon receiving a new submission through the journal's online system, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor conducts an initial assessment before assigning the manuscript to external reviewers.

The preliminary assessment considers:

Focus and Scope: The manuscript must be relevant to chemistry or related areas covered by Jurnal Kimia VALENSI.
Originality and Novelty: The research should demonstrate an identifiable original contribution and a clear relationship to existing scientific knowledge.
Manuscript Preparation: The article must comply with the journal's submission requirements, manuscript template, and reference style.
Research Integrity: The manuscript is evaluated for plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, and appropriate research reporting.
Scientific Quality: The editorial team considers the clarity of the research objectives, the suitability of the methods, the adequacy of supporting evidence, and the potential significance of the findings.
Completeness: Required author information, declarations, figures, tables, references, and supporting documents must be provided as applicable.

Initial Editorial Decision Manuscripts that satisfy the preliminary requirements proceed to peer review. Submissions that fall outside the journal's scope or contain substantial deficiencies may be returned to the authors or declined without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Jurnal Kimia VALENSI applies a double-blind peer-review system to support impartial scientific evaluation.

Author Anonymity Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during the double-blind review process.

Reviewer Anonymity Author identities are concealed from reviewers in the manuscript files supplied for blinded evaluation.

Each manuscript proceeding to peer review is evaluated by at least two experts whose research backgrounds are relevant to the subject matter of the article.

Reviewers are selected with consideration of their scholarly competence, expertise, independence, availability, and potential conflicts of interest.

Authors may be required to provide an anonymized manuscript file and remove identifying information from the review version, while complete authorship metadata remains available to the authorized editorial office.

3. Criteria for Scientific Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts critically, objectively, and constructively. The assessment focuses on scientific originality, methodological reliability, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the development of chemical knowledge.

Originality and Novelty Whether the study addresses a relevant research gap and offers an original scientific contribution beyond existing findings.

Research Methodology Whether experimental, computational, or analytical procedures are suitable, sufficiently described, and reproducible.

Data Reliability Whether results are supported by appropriate evidence, including measurements, spectra, chromatograms, calculations, statistical analyses, or other relevant records.

Results and Discussion Whether the findings are accurately interpreted, related to chemical principles, and critically compared with previous studies.

Scientific Contribution Whether the findings advance theoretical understanding, methodology, material development, chemical applications, or another relevant research area.

Presentation and References Whether the article is clearly organized, appropriately documented, and supported by relevant, credible, and up-to-date literature.

4. Editorial Decisions

After receiving the reviewer reports, the handling editor or Editorial Board evaluates the recommendations, considers the scientific arguments provided by the reviewers, and determines the appropriate editorial decision.

Accept The manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial requirements and may proceed toward publication preparation.

Minor Revision The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarification before further editorial consideration.

Major Revision Substantial improvements to the methodology, interpretation, supporting evidence, or manuscript presentation are required.

Reject The manuscript does not satisfy the journal's publication standards or cannot adequately address the identified scientific concerns.

Editorial Authority: Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not automatically determine the outcome. The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the authorized editorial team.

5. Author Revision and Re-Evaluation

When revision is requested, the corresponding author receives the editorial decision together with the relevant reviewer and editor comments through the journal's editorial system.

Authors are expected to:

Carefully examine the reviewer and editor comments.
Revise the manuscript to address the identified scientific and presentation issues.
Prepare a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.
Identify the relevant changes made to the revised manuscript.
Provide a reasoned scientific explanation when a particular recommendation is not followed.
Submit the revised manuscript and response documents by the deadline communicated by the editor.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor or returned to the original reviewers or other qualified experts when additional scientific evaluation is required.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. The editorial team may request further changes or decline the manuscript when important concerns remain unresolved.

6. Peer Review Timeline

The following timeline illustrates the principal stages of manuscript evaluation, from submission to publication. Jurnal Kimia VALENSI indicates an approximate review time of eight weeks. The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the research, the extent of required revisions, and editorial workload.

Manuscript Submission DAY 0

The corresponding author submits the manuscript and required documents through OJS.

Initial Editorial Screening INITIAL ASSESSMENT

The editor examines the manuscript's scope, originality, scientific suitability, completeness, and compliance with journal policies.

Reviewer Selection and Invitation AFTER SCREENING

The editor invites at least two qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Double-Blind Peer Review APPROXIMATELY 8-WEEK REVIEW CYCLE

The assigned reviewers evaluate scientific novelty, methodology, evidence, interpretation, and contribution. The reported eight-week period is an overall review estimate, not a fixed duration for this individual stage.

Editorial Decision AFTER REVIEWER REPORTS

The Editorial Team considers reviewer recommendations and communicates the decision to the corresponding author.

Author Revision EDITOR-SPECIFIED DEADLINE

When revision is required, authors revise the manuscript and submit a point-by-point response within the assigned deadline.

Re-Evaluation and Final Decision AFTER REVISED SUBMISSION

The editor evaluates the revised manuscript and may request further review before issuing a final decision.

Production and Publication AFTER ACCEPTANCE

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, author proof checking, and publication scheduling. Regular issues are published in May and November; advance-access publication may also be used when available.

Important Timeline Information

Estimated Review Time: Approximately eight weeks, as announced by Jurnal Kimia VALENSI.

Revision Time: Determined by the editor according to the extent of required corrections.

Publication Schedule: May and November, with advance access when applicable.

Note: The timeline is indicative. Reviewer availability, additional review rounds, author revision time, and production requirements may extend the total time from submission to publication.

7. Review Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

Reviewers and editors must maintain confidentiality throughout the peer-review process and protect unpublished research information.

Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide academically justified comments.
Reviewers should decline assignments when their expertise is insufficient or a conflict of interest may compromise impartiality.
Unpublished data, research ideas, and experimental findings must not be used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should report credible concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicated findings, fabricated data, or questionable scientific evidence to the editor.
Editors must manage potential conflicts of interest and preserve the independence of editorial decisions.

The peer-review process follows the journal's publication-ethics requirements and is intended to support fair assessment, scholarly accountability, and reliable scientific communication.

8. Final Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript is accepted only after the authorized editorial team determines that it meets the journal's requirements for originality, scientific quality, research integrity, and presentation.

Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds through the relevant production stages, which may include copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, metadata verification, and final publication preparation.

Publication in a particular issue depends on editorial scheduling and completion of production requirements. Acceptance does not automatically guarantee publication in the nearest issue.