Peer Review Process

SEMESTA: Journal of Community Empowerment applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly integrity of every published article. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous evaluation by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area. Throughout the review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure an objective and impartial assessment.

The peer review process consists of the following stages:

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The submission must comply with the journal's Author Guidelines and publication requirements.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editorial Office conducts a preliminary evaluation to determine whether the manuscript fits the journal's aims, focus, and scope. At this stage, the manuscript is also checked for completeness, formatting, ethical compliance, and overall academic quality.

3. Similarity Check

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening undergo a plagiarism assessment using Turnitin or equivalent similarity detection software. Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity levels or evidence of plagiarism may be rejected before entering peer review.

4. Editor-in-Chief Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript's originality, relevance, significance, methodological quality, and potential contribution to community empowerment scholarship. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's standards may be rejected without external review.

5. Reviewer Assignment

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers whose expertise closely matches the manuscript's topic. The journal implements a double-blind review, ensuring that neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identities throughout the review process.

6. Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria, including:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope;

  • Originality and innovation of the community engagement initiative;

  • Methodological rigor and implementation process;

  • Evidence of community impact and sustainability;

  • Clarity of presentation and organization;

  • Quality of discussion and conclusions;

  • Compliance with ethical standards.

Based on their assessment, reviewers recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept;

  • Minor Revision;

  • Major Revision;

  • Reject.

7. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief considers all reviewer reports before making the editorial decision. When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer to obtain an independent assessment.

8. Author Revision

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers' and editors' comments. A detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed should accompany the revised submission.

9. Final Decision and Publication

The revised manuscript is evaluated by the handling editor and, when necessary, returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. Once the manuscript satisfies the journal's academic and ethical standards, it is formally accepted for publication.

Accepted manuscripts proceed through copyediting, proofreading, layout editing, and final author approval before being published online as open-access articles. All published articles are freely accessible to readers and may be downloaded without subscription or access fees.