Peer Review Proces
- Submission of Articles.
The author submits articles under the focus and scope specified by the Journal of Statmat Unpam through the submission channel.
- Assessment by Managing Editor.
The editor accepts the submission and assessed by the editorial manager of the potential for plagiarism and compliance with journal writing guidelines. The article's content quality is not assessed in this process.
- Rating by Editor In Chief (EIC).
The EIC checks that the article fits within the journal's scope and is original and interesting enough to be published in a journal. If proper, the article passed on to reviewers for the review process. If it does not match, the article will be rejected without further review.
- EIC assigns Editorial Board.
In the process of forwarding the article to the reviewer, EIC assigns the editorial board who will take full responsibility in the communication between the writer and the reviewer.
- Invitation to reviewers
The editorial board will decide and invites the reviewer to give a willingness to check the article.
- The review process.
Reviewers consider suitability to their ability, potential conflicts of interest, and time availability. If possible, when they refuse, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
- The editor evaluates the results of the review.
The editorial board considers all returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the results of the review are very different, the editor can invite other reviewers to get more opinions before deciding.
- Decisions are communicated.
The editor sends a decision email to the author including relevant reviewer comments. If accepted, the article is processed in preparation for publication with the author.
If the article is rejected or sent back for large or small revisions, the editorial board must include constructive comments from reviewers to help the writer improve the article. At this point, the reviewer is also sent an email or letter to let them know the results of their review. If the paper is sent back for revision, the reviewer expects to receive the new version, unless the author has opted out of further participation. However, if only minor changes are requested, this follow-up review can be carried out by the editorial board.