Peer Review Policies

All manuscripts submitted to the Jurnal Penelitian Fisika dan Aplikasinya (JPFA) are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process by a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers must not be members of the JPFA Editorial Team. The peer-review process normally takes approximately 8 weeks, although the actual duration may vary depending on Reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and whether additional review is required.

In the double-blind peer-review process, the identities of the Authors are concealed from the Reviewers, and the identities of the Reviewers are concealed from the Authors. JPFA maintains the confidentiality, independence, objectivity, and integrity of the peer-review process.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise, competence, relevant scholarly record, independence, and ability to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. They should have appropriate academic or professional expertise relevant to the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers may be selected from the JPFA Peer Reviewer database, qualified researchers identified by the Editor, researchers publishing relevant work in reputable scholarly journals, or qualified experts suggested by the Authors. Researchers who have previously published in JPFA may also be considered, provided that they meet the journal's requirements for expertise and independence.

Where appropriate, Reviewers should have a verifiable scholarly profile, such as a Scopus ID, ResearcherID, or another recognized researcher identifier or publication record relevant to the manuscript.

The Editor is responsible for selecting qualified and independent Reviewers and is not obligated to appoint any Reviewer suggested by the Authors.

Author-Suggested and Excluded Reviewers

Authors may suggest a maximum of 10 potential Reviewers when submitting their manuscript. Where possible, the following information should be provided for each suggested Reviewer: academic title, full name, institutional affiliation, postal address, and email address.

Authors may also identify a maximum of 5 individuals whom they prefer not to review their manuscript. A reasonable explanation should be provided for each request.

Reviewer suggestions and exclusion requests are considered by the Editor but are not binding.

Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must be independent of the Authors and the manuscript under evaluation. They should normally be affiliated with institutions different from those of the Authors and must not have financial, personal, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or other relationships that could affect, or reasonably be perceived as affecting, their impartiality.

Before accepting a review assignment, Reviewers should ensure that they have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript and no relevant conflict of interest. A Reviewer who cannot provide an independent and objective assessment must decline the invitation and inform the Editor.

Confidentiality of Peer Review

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, discuss, or disclose manuscripts or their contents to others without prior authorization from the Editor.

Information, data, ideas, or unpublished materials obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, academic, professional, or financial advantage.

Peer-Review Assessment

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, and within their areas of expertise. The assessment should consider, where relevant:

• originality and novelty of the research;
• significance and scholarly contribution of the work;
• relevance to the aims and scope of JPFA;
• appropriateness and soundness of the research methods;
• accuracy and validity of the analysis and interpretation;
• clarity and completeness of the presentation;
• adequacy and relevance of the supporting literature and references;
• consistency between the evidence presented and the conclusions; and
• compliance with relevant research and publication ethics.

Reviewer comments should be clear, objective, constructive, and supported by appropriate scholarly arguments. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, hostile language, or comments unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript are inappropriate.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited where this is important to the evaluation of the manuscript. They should also notify the Editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and other published or unpublished work of which they are aware.

Reviewers must not request citations primarily for the purpose of increasing citations to themselves, their associates, their institutions, or particular journals where those citations are not academically relevant.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, a manuscript may receive one of the following editorial decisions:

• Accepted;
• Accepted with Minor Revision;
• Major Revision; or
• Rejected.

Reviewer reports and recommendations support the editorial evaluation but do not determine the decision automatically. The Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor makes the final editorial decision after considering the Reviewers' reports, the Authors' responses and revisions, the manuscript's originality and scholarly quality, the validity of the research, its relevance to the aims and scope of JPFA, and compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical policies.

Where Reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor may seek clarification, invite an additional independent Reviewer, or undertake further editorial assessment before reaching a final decision.

The editorial decision is communicated to the Authors through the journal's editorial system and/or registered email address.

Revision Process

When revision is requested, Authors are expected to address the comments and recommendations of the Reviewers and Editors systematically. A revised manuscript should be accompanied by a clear response explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing a reasoned explanation where a suggested change has not been adopted.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original Reviewers or undergo further editorial assessment when additional review is considered necessary.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Editors and Editorial Board members may submit manuscripts to JPFA. When an Editor or Editorial Board member is an Author or co-Author, that individual must have no involvement in the editorial assessment, Reviewer selection, peer-review process, or final decision concerning the manuscript.

The manuscript must be handled by another qualified Editor with no conflict of interest and undergo the same independent double-blind peer-review process and editorial standards applied to other submissions.

Peer-Review Integrity

JPFA does not tolerate manipulation of the peer-review process, including fabricated Reviewer identities, false contact information, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate influence over Reviewer selection, coercive citation practices, or other actions intended to compromise the independence or integrity of peer review.

Suspected manipulation or other ethical concerns related to peer review will be investigated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).