Peer Review Policy
1. Peer Review Policy & Governance Statement
Jurnal Transformatika is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity, editorial transparency, and fair evaluation. All original research articles undergo rigorous peer review handled by qualified editors and independent subject specialists.
Our review policies align strictly with the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and national accreditation standards set by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology, Republic of Indonesia.
2. Reviewer Selection & Eligibility Criteria
Peer reviewers are selected based on verified subject expertise, active publication records, independence, and professional conduct:
- Minimum Reviewer Count: Every research manuscript that passes initial desk screening is evaluated by at least two (2) independent peer reviewers.
- Institutional Diversity: To prevent institutional bias, reviewers must be affiliated with diverse national or international universities and research institutes outside the authors' host institution.
- Identity Verification: The editorial office verifies reviewer credentials and official institutional affiliations prior to assignment.
3. Confidentiality and Data Protection
Manuscripts under review are strictly confidential documents:
- Privileged Material: Editors and reviewers must not share, discuss, reproduce, or exploit unpublished manuscript contents, code, or datasets for personal advantage.
- Identity Masking: Reviewer identities remain protected before, during, and after the review process in accordance with our double-blind model.
4. Ethical Safeguards & Strict Prohibitions
A. Prohibition of Fast-Track / Guaranteed Acceptance Fees
Jurnal Transformatika strictly prohibits any paid "fast-track" review scheme that promises or guarantees manuscript acceptance. Article Processing Charges (APCs) apply only after formal double-blind review acceptance and have zero influence on editorial outcomes.
B. Strict Prohibition of Generative AI Usage by Reviewers
Peer review is an inherently human-driven expert assessment. Peer reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading, pasting, or feeding submitted manuscripts, abstracts, datasets, figures, or code into external Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) or third-party automated bots. Uploading unpublished manuscripts to commercial AI platforms constitutes a severe breach of author confidentiality, data privacy, and copyright laws.
C. Conflict of Interest Recusal
Editors and reviewers must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript in which they have a competing financial, personal, academic, or collaborative relationship with the authors. If a conflict becomes apparent during review, the reviewer must notify the handling editor immediately to reassign the paper.
5. Editorial Authority & Independence
- Final Publication Authority: The final decision to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief and handling editors, guided by reviewer reports and academic merit.
- Advisory Role of Reviewers: Reviewers provide expert recommendations; however, editors are not bound by reviewer votes if independent evidence supports a different editorial conclusion.
- Editorial Independence: Journal owners, university leadership, sponsors, or payment statuses exert no influence over editorial decisions.
6. Editorial Appeals & Complaint Procedures
Authors who believe a material procedural error or scientific misunderstanding affected an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal:
- Appeal Submission: Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office within 14 days of the decision notice, providing explicit, evidence-based scientific rebuttals. Re-submitting a rejected paper without addressing reviewer critiques does not constitute a valid appeal.
- Independent Evaluation: Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent appeal editor who was not involved in the original decision. The appeal determination is final.
