Jurnal DEWANUSA menerbitkan artikel mengikuti panduan dan template. Semua naskah yang dikirimkan akan melalui proses peer-review single-blind. Pra-review naskah dilakukan oleh tim redaksi untuk meninjau kesesuaian teks dengan fokus dan ruang lingkup serta gaya jurnal dan pedoman penulisan. Setiap artikel direview oleh satu sampai dua reviewer. Naskah akan dikirim ke reviewer berdasarkan bidang spesialisasinya. Reviewer memberikan penilaian terhadap naskah yang meliputi orisinalitas, kontribusi ilmiah, dan kejelasan penyajian dan merekomendasikan apakah artikel diterima, diterima dengan revisi kecil, diterima dengan revisi besar, atau ditolak. Berdasarkan rekomendasi dari para peninjau, dewan redaksi membuat keputusan atas ulasan dan saran.
Peer Review Process Team DEWANUSA Platform Game Online
Meta Description: Sistem peer review komprehensif DEWANUSA dengan panel expert reviewer, standar quality assurance berlapis, feedback mechanism, dan commitment pada content excellence untuk gaming journalism terbaik.
Peer Review System Overview
DEWANUSA implements comprehensive peer review system untuk ensure content quality, accuracy, dan credibility sebelum publication. Our peer review process adalah rigorous yet collaborative—designed untuk improve content quality sambil supporting authors dalam producing excellent gaming journalism.
Review Objectives & Goals
DEWANUSA's peer review process serves multiple critical objectives:
- Accuracy Verification: Verify factual claims, data, quotes, citations sebelum publication
- Quality Enhancement: Provide constructive feedback untuk improve writing, structure, clarity
- Expert Validation: Ensure content meets industry expertise standards dalam relevant areas
- Ethical Compliance: Confirm adherence kepada ethical standards, conflict of interest policies, editorial guidelines
- Balanced Perspective: Ensure fair, balanced coverage especially untuk controversial atau sensitive topics
- Originality Assessment: Confirm content adalah original work tanpa plagiarism
- Strategic Alignment: Verify content align dengan DEWANUSA scope, editorial mission, audience needs
Expert Reviewer Panels & Selection
DEWANUSA maintains diverse panels dari expert reviewers dengan deep expertise dalam different gaming areas:
Primary Reviewer Panels
Diverse Expert Specialized- Gaming Journalism Panel: Professional journalists, editors, writing experts ensuring editorial excellence
- Technical Gaming Panel: Game developers, programmers, technical experts reviewing technical accuracy
- Industry Expertise Panel: Business professionals, market analysts reviewing business-related coverage
- E-Sport Specialist Panel: Professional gamers, tournament organizers, esports experts reviewing competitive gaming content
- Academic Research Panel: Game studies scholars, researchers validating research-based content
- Cultural Analyst Panel: Cultural experts ensuring nuanced, accurate cultural representation
- Community Representative Panel: Engaged community members providing audience perspective
Reviewer Selection Criteria
- Deep expertise dalam relevant gaming area (minimum 5 years professional experience)
- Track record untuk quality feedback, constructive criticism, collaborative approach
- No conflicts of interest dengan subjects covered atau financial interests dalam related companies
- Understanding tentang DEWANUSA editorial standards dan quality expectations
- Commitment kepada fair, objective assessment tanpa personal bias
- Reliable availability untuk timely review completion
- Strong communication skills untuk providing clear, actionable feedback
Review Workflow & Process
Systematic multi-stage review workflow ensures thorough assessment:
Stage 1: Initial Editorial Assessment (1-2 days)
Editor-in-chief perform initial review untuk ensure article meet basic requirements: appropriate scope, sufficient quality, complete submission. Obvious issues (plagiarism, major factual errors, scope mismatch) identified untuk early feedback dengan author.
Stage 2: Peer Reviewer Assignment (1 day)
Editorial team select 2-3 appropriate peer reviewers berdasarkan article topic expertise. Reviewer profiles reviewed untuk ensure no conflicts of interest. Reviewers invited dengan clear instructions, deadline, evaluation criteria.
Stage 3: Peer Review Evaluation (5-7 days)
Peer reviewers conduct detailed review menggunakan standardized evaluation form. Review fokus pada accuracy, quality, compliance dengan guidelines. Reviewer provide specific feedback, questions, suggestions untuk improvement dengan timely completion.
Stage 4: Author Feedback & Response (5-7 days)
Editorial team collect reviewer feedback dan communicate kepada author dengan comprehensive summary. Author provided opportunity untuk respond kepada feedback, clarify points, implement suggestions atau provide counter-arguments untuk reviewer concerns.
Stage 5: Revision & Resubmission (5-10 days)
Author implement reviewer feedback dan submit revised article dengan detailed response explaining changes made. Major revisions undergo second round review; minor revisions reviewed oleh editorial team. Process dapat iterate jika needed untuk address significant issues.
Stage 6: Final Approval (1-2 days)
Final approval dari Editor-in-Chief confirm article meet quality standards. Article approved untuk publication atau requires additional revision jika substantial issues remain.
Evaluation Criteria & Standards
Peer reviewers evaluate articles against comprehensive set dari criteria organized dalam categories:
| Evaluation Category | Specific Criteria | Evaluation Method |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Facts verified, quotes accurate, data correct | Fact-checking against sources, verifying data |
| Credibility | Sources reputable, methodology sound, conclusions justified | Assessing source quality, logic evaluation |
| Clarity | Writing clear, structure logical, ideas well-expressed | Reading comprehension, structural analysis |
| Completeness | Topic adequately covered, perspectives included, gaps identified | Coverage assessment, missing element identification |
| Balance | Multiple perspectives presented fairly, not biased | Bias detection, perspective analysis |
| Originality | Unique contribution, not plagiarized, proper attribution | Plagiarism detection, attribution review |
| Ethics | Ethical standards met, conflicts disclosed, no harm potential | Ethical checklist review, conflict assessment |
Feedback & Communication Protocol
Feedback Structure
Constructive Specific ActionablePeer reviewer feedback structured dalam clear format untuk maximize usefulness:
- Overall Assessment: Summary tentang article's strengths dan areas untuk improvement
- Specific Comments: Detailed feedback pada specific passages, paragraphs, atau sections
- Accuracy Issues: Specific factual errors, unverified claims, atau questionable data
- Improvement Suggestions: Concrete proposals untuk how author dapat address identified issues
- Final Recommendation: Accept, accept dengan minor revision, major revision, atau reject recommendation
Communication Guidelines
- Feedback dibuat respectfully dan constructively—focus pada improvement, not criticism
- Specific examples provided untuk support feedback points
- Tone remain professional, collegial, encouraging collaborative improvement
- Reviewers avoid personal attacks atau condescending language
- Alternative approaches suggested jika identifying problems
- Clear explanation provided tentang why changes recommended atau concerns raised
Quality Assurance Metrics
DEWANUSA track quality assurance metrics untuk monitor peer review process effectiveness:
Review Completion Metrics
Average Time to Complete Review: 6 days (target: 7 days). Review Completion Rate: 98% (very few missed deadlines). Number of Review Rounds: Average 1.5 rounds per article (range 1-3 typically).
Quality Metrics
Articles Approved on First Review: 45% approve after first round, 35% approve after minor revision, 20% require major revision. Rejection Rate: <2% articles rejected setelah peer review process. Author Satisfaction: 88% feedback positif dari authors tentang reviewer feedback quality.
Reviewer Performance Metrics
Reviewer Reliability: 95% of assigned reviewers complete reviews timely. Review Quality Ratings: 90% reviews rated sebagai helpful dan specific oleh authors. Reviewer Consistency: Regular calibration meetings ensure consistent evaluation standards across reviewer panel.
Reviewer Training & Guidelines
DEWANUSA invest dalam peer reviewer training untuk ensure quality, consistency:
- All new reviewers participate dalam orientation training explaining DEWANUSA standards, process, expectations
- Standardized evaluation forms ensure consistent assessment across reviewers
- Regular calibration meetings dengan reviewer groups align pada evaluation standards
- Annual refresher trainings untuk ensure continued alignment dengan evolving standards
- Direct mentorship dari experienced reviewers untuk new panelists
- Clear guidelines document detailing review expectations, feedback communication, ethical standards
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Timely Review Completion: Complete reviews within specified deadline (typically 5-7 days)
- Objective Assessment: Evaluate article fairly, objectively tanpa personal bias atau conflicts
- Constructive Feedback: Provide specific, actionable feedback focused pada improvement
- Confidentiality: Maintain confidentiality dari article content, author identity (jika appropriate), review process
- Professional Ethics: Adhere kepada ethical standards, avoid conflicts of interest, disclose jika unsure tentang objectivity
- Transparent Reasoning: Clearly explain reasoning behind recommendations
- Continuous Improvement: Seek feedback tentang own reviews, continuously improve assessment quality
Appeals & Dispute Resolution
DEWANUSA provide fair appeals process jika authors disagree dengan peer review outcomes:
Appeals Procedure
- Appeal Submission: Author submit appeal kepada Editorial Board within 7 days dari rejection atau major revision decision, explaining specific disagreement dengan reviewer feedback
- Appeal Review: Editorial Board review appeal, article, original feedback untuk assess validity dari author's concerns
- Second Review (if warranted): Independent reviewer (different dari original reviewers) conduct re-review jika appeal raise substantive questions tentang original assessment
- Board Decision: Board make final decision berdasarkan all available information—uphold original decision, request different revisions, atau approve dengan conditions
- Appeal Outcome Communication: Communicate decision dengan clear explanation tentang reasoning kepada both author dan original reviewers
Appeal Criteria
- Reviewer feedback contained factual errors atau significant misunderstandings
- Reviewer appear bias atau have undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Original review appear inconsistent dengan stated evaluation criteria
- Reviewer feedback contradicted oleh expert opinion atau verifiable facts
FAQ Peer Review Process DEWANUSA
1. Apakah peer review adalah mandatory untuk semua articles?
Ya, 100% articles undergo peer review sebelum publication, tanpa exception. Ini apply kepada internal staff articles juga sebagai demonstration dari commitment pada quality dan fairness. Only extremely time-sensitive breaking news mungkin undergo expedited review process.
2. Berapa lama peer review process typically takes?
Typical timeline adalah 2-3 weeks dari initial submission hingga final publication decision. Breakdown: 2 days initial assessment, 5-7 days peer review, 5-7 days author revisions, 1-2 days final approval. Expedited process mungkin compress timeline untuk urgent topics.
3. Siapa akan know bahwa article saya being reviewed?
Author informed bahwa article undergoing review process. Reviewers remain anonymous kepada authors untuk maintain objectivity dan prevent bias. Identitas reviewers known only kepada Editorial team untuk manage conflicts of interest.
4. Dapatkah author suggest specific reviewers untuk article?
Yes, authors dapat suggest reviewer dengan expertise relevant untuk article topic. However, suggestions tidak binding—editorial team make final decision. Suggestions considered untuk expand reviewer pool tetapi final selection remain dalam editorial discretion.
5. Apakah saya bisa request second opinion jika disagree dengan feedback?
Yes, formal appeals process tersedia. Authors dapat submit appeal explaining disagreement dengan reviewer feedback. Appeal undergo evaluation oleh Editorial Board, dengan potential independent re-review jika appeal raise substantive questions tentang original assessment.
6. Bagaimana reviewer conflicts of interest di-manage?
Conflict of interest disclosure form required dari all reviewers. Editorial team assess disclosed conflicts untuk determine if reviewer dapat proceed atau recusal necessary. Reviewers dengan financial interests, personal relationships, atau institutional affiliations dengan article subjects typically excluded dari review.
7. Dapatkah artikel rejected setelah peer review meskipun well-written?
Yes, rejection possible berdasarkan multiple factors beyond writing quality: factual inaccuracy, unverifiable claims, ethical concerns, scope mismatch, insufficient expertise, atau significant balance issues. Rejection decisions typically accompanied oleh detailed feedback explaining decision rationale.
8. Berapa banyak reviewers evaluate setiap article?
Typically 2-3 peer reviewers assigned per article untuk ensure multiple perspectives. Complex articles, controversial topics, atau research-heavy pieces mungkin receive additional reviewer scrutiny. Standard articles usually reviewed oleh 2 reviewers; 3 atau more jika initial reviews conflict substantially.
9. Apakah review feedback shared dengan article author?
Yes, review feedback completely shared dengan author. Editorial team compile reviewer feedback dan communicate comprehensive summary kepada author. Author dapat see specific reviewer comments (anonymized jika appropriate) untuk understand feedback rationale.
10. Bagaimana if author tidak agree untuk implement reviewer feedback?
Authors dapat propose alternative approaches atau explain disagreement dengan reviewer suggestions. While feedback seriously considered, authors retain editorial voice. However, major factual corrections atau ethical issues non-negotiable. Persistent disagreement dapat result dalam article rejection atau publication delay.