Peer Review Process

Keteg: Jurnal Pengetahuan, Pemikiran dan Kajian Tentang Bunyi is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity through a rigorous and transparent peer-review process. All submitted manuscripts must pass through a structured evaluation workflow before being considered for publication.

Initial Screening (Desk Review)
Upon submission, the Managing Editor conducts an initial administrative and editorial screening. This stage evaluates:
Scope Alignment: Whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s focus on sound, music, acoustics, or performing arts.
Formatting Compliance: Strict adherence to the Keteg Article Template, Author Guidelines, and the Chicago Manual of Style 17th Edition (Author-Date) for citations.
Originality Check: A thorough plagiarism and similarity check using [Turnitin / iThenticate]. Manuscripts that do not meet these fundamental criteria, lack a clear State of the Art, or show a high similarity index will be returned to the authors or desk-rejected before entering the review phase.

Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers selected by the Section Editor or Associate Editor. Keteg employs a strict double-blind peer-review system. The identities of both the authors and the reviewers are completely concealed from each other throughout the entire evaluation process to ensure maximum objectivity and eliminate any potential bias.

Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific substance, not merely its language. Key assessment criteria include:
The presence of significant scientific novelty.
The clarity and accuracy of the Gap Analysis and State of the Art.
The rigor and appropriateness of the applied methodology.
The analytical depth in the Results and Discussion section (specifically addressing the What, Why, and What Else). Reviewers are expected to provide comprehensive, constructive feedback and submit a recommendation within a designated timeframe (typically 4 to 6 weeks).

Editorial Decision
Based on the peer-reviewers' detailed reports, the Section Editor synthesizes the feedback and provides a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief holds the final authority to make the publication decision. The possible decisions are:
Accepted: The manuscript is accepted for publication without any further changes.
Accepted with Minor Revisions: The authors must make superficial or structural corrections based on reviewer notes.
Accepted with Major Revisions: The authors must substantially revise the theoretical framework, data analysis, or methodology before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Rejected: The manuscript lacks scientific merit, has fundamental methodological flaws, or falls outside the journal's scope.

Revision and Final Approval
If revisions are required, authors must submit the revised manuscript along with a "Response to Reviewers" document explicitly detailing how and where each comment was addressed. For major revisions, the revised manuscript may undergo a second round of review. Final acceptance is granted only when the Editor-in-Chief is fully satisfied that all academic and formatting standards have been met.