Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
- Review Model
Dewa Ruci: Jurnal Pengkajian dan Penciptaan Seni applies a double-blind peer review process to evaluate the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and contribution of submitted manuscripts. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. The journal seeks independent assessments from qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, reviewers' assessments, and the journal's editorial standards. - Initial Assessment (Editorial Screening)
Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic requirements and is suitable for external peer review. The initial assessment considers:
(1) Compatibility with the journal's aims and scope, particularly research and scholarly contributions concerning art studies, artistic creation, visual arts, performing arts, music, and related fields.
(2) Compliance with the journal's manuscript template and submission requirements.
(3) Originality, relevance, and potential scholarly contribution.
(4) Adequacy of the research design and methodology for the stated objectives.
(5) Compliance with applicable research ethics and publication policies.
(6) Potential plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, duplicate publication, and other publication ethics concerns.
Manuscripts may be rejected without external review if they fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, contain fundamental methodological deficiencies, or raise serious concerns regarding originality or research integrity. Similarity reports generated using tools such as iThenticate are assessed contextually. A similarity score exceeding the journal's stated threshold may trigger further examination but does not, by itself, establish plagiarism or automatically determine the editorial decision. - Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to an editor who coordinates the external peer review process. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, scholarly significance, theoretical foundation, methodological rigor, validity of findings or artistic analysis, quality of interpretation, and relevance to the journal's readership. For manuscripts focusing on artistic creation, reviewers may also evaluate the conceptual framework, creative process, artistic approach, critical reflection, and contribution to the development of artistic practice and knowledge, as applicable to the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based comments and recommendations. They must maintain confidentiality, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and decline assignments when they cannot provide an impartial assessment. Authors and reviewers must not disclose or attempt to establish one another's identities during the double-blind review process. Authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript and associated files where necessary. The review process typically takes approximately 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of review rounds. This timeframe is an estimate rather than a guarantee. Authors will be informed of significant delays where appropriate. - Editorial Decisions
Following the review process, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes an editorial recommendation or decision in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures. Possible decisions include:
(1) Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision.
(2) Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications before a final decision. The editor will assess whether the revisions adequately address the requested changes.
(3) Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required to address concerns relating to methodology, analysis, interpretation, presentation, or other aspects of the manuscript. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to other qualified reviewers.
(4) Reject and Resubmit: The manuscript requires substantial redevelopment and cannot be accepted in its current form. A substantially revised version may be submitted as a new submission, subject to the journal's policy and editorial assessment. Resubmission does not guarantee acceptance.
(5) Reject: The manuscript is not accepted for publication. The decision may be based on scope, scholarly quality, methodological limitations, insufficient contribution, or serious ethical concerns.
The final editorial decision rests with the authorized editor and is not determined solely by reviewer recommendations. Editors must exercise independent judgment and ensure that decisions are fair, evidence-based, and consistent with the journal's policies. - Revision and Reassessment
Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editorial office or request an extension where necessary. Authors must provide a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. Where a suggested change is not adopted, authors should provide a clear and reasoned explanation. The editor evaluates the revised manuscript and may request further clarification or additional revisions. Manuscripts requiring substantial changes may undergo another round of external peer review before a final decision is made. Failure to address substantive comments adequately may result in rejection. - Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential. Editors and reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage. Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. Where a conflict exists, the individual concerned must withdraw from the relevant editorial or review assignment, and an appropriate alternative must be appointed. Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit and must not be influenced by personal relationships, institutional affiliations, nationality, or other irrelevant considerations. - Appeals and Publication Ethics
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned written request to the editorial office. Appeals must identify specific factual errors, procedural irregularities, or substantive concerns that may have affected the decision. Appeals are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision, where practicable. The journal may seek additional independent advice before reaching a final decision. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance. Concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, unethical research practices, or other forms of publication misconduct will be investigated in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies and applicable guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). - Production and Publication
Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and layout preparation. Authors may be asked to review proofs to identify typographical errors and verify the accuracy of the final version. Proof corrections must not introduce substantial changes to the accepted manuscript without editorial approval. The article is published online after completion of the journal's production and quality-control procedures. The published article should include the relevant editorial history, including submission, revision, acceptance, and publication dates, in accordance with the journal's publication practices.