Editorial & Peer Review process

Editorial Process

To keep the reputation of this journal publisher, ARGIPA follows the step in the reviewing process to be a solid and constructive review.  Each manuscript will initially be checked of the suitability academic topic. The accepted manuscripts will be peer-reviewed (double blind) confidentially by focusing on merits and demerits of the paper and significance of the findings in reviewer’s confidential remarks to the Editor. After being reviewed, editor will confirm to the author for adequacy revisions before final decision is made by the editor regarding the reviewer’s recommendation. This decisions are published, published with revisions, or rejected by following the steps:

  1. The manuscripts initially will be accepted without revision.
  2. The manuscript will be revised, if the reviewers found minor demerits. After being revised by the author, this manuscript will be re-submitted.
  3. The manuscript may be accepted and require second round of review, in case of the reviewer found any significant demerits which should be changed.
  4. The manuscript will not be accepted according to the incompatibility of substances with the academic topic/science. Therefore, this manuscript will be recommended to submit elsewhere.

The manuscript will be possibly accepted without revision, minor revision, major revision, or even will be rejected. The editor will notify the author via email of the manuscript  review result to revise no latter than 4 weeks after the email notification. The authenticity of all manuscripts will be checked by using Plagiarism Checker software. All articles published  in ARGIPA can be accessed openly.

Peer Review Process

ARGIPA has a system to ensure that material submitted to the journal remain confidential while under review.  The peer-review process adopts double-blind process, which reviewers identity should never be revealed out to the authors at any time either during the process of review or after its publication, also author names and affiliations are masked.  Besides, the reviewers must complete any checklists/forms.

Additionally, ARGIPA ensure that peer review is undertaken in a timely fashion so that authors do not experience undue delays. This will usually involve monitoring the process regularly and trying to increase efficiency and prevent delays.