Jurnal Desain applies a double-blind peer-review process to manuscripts that have successfully completed the Initial Editorial Assessment. Under this system, the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.
Peer review is intended to provide an independent and substantive assessment of the manuscript's scholarly quality, methodological soundness, analytical depth, originality, contribution, and suitability for publication in Jurnal Desain.
The journal's peer-review process follows recognized principles of publication ethics and peer-review integrity, including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
1. Submission of Manuscript
The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the Jurnal Desain Open Journal Systems (OJS).
Upon submission, the system records the manuscript and notifies the editorial office. All editorial processing, reviewer assignment, review reports, revisions, and editorial decisions are managed through OJS.
2. Preliminary Administrative Completeness Check
Before entering the Initial Editorial Assessment, each submission is checked for basic administrative completeness by the editorial office or designated editorial staff.
The check includes, but is not limited to:
- completeness of the required submission files;
- submission of the manuscript in the required editable format;
- completeness and accuracy of author metadata in OJS;
- author affiliations and corresponding-author information;
- submission of the required Author Integrity Declaration;
- completeness of mandatory declarations or supporting documents; and
- basic compliance with the Submission Preparation Checklist.
Submissions that do not meet the minimum administrative requirements may be returned to the author for completion before editorial assessment.
An administrative return does not constitute a scholarly assessment, peer-review decision, or rejection based on the academic merit of the manuscript.
3. Initial Editorial Assessment
Submissions that pass the Preliminary Administrative Completeness Check undergo an Initial Editorial Assessment conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor.
The Initial Editorial Assessment integrates two components:
a. Submission and Technical Compliance
The editorial team evaluates compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript preparation requirements, including:
- use of the official article template;
- manuscript structure and formatting;
- manuscript length;
- title, abstract, and keywords;
- presentation and quality of figures, tables, and visual materials;
- citation-reference consistency;
- reference style;
- use of a reference manager;
- completeness of required declarations; and
- similarity screening.
b. Journal Scope and Scholarly Assessment
The manuscript is also assessed for its academic and editorial suitability, including:
- relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
- clarity and significance of the research problem;
- adequacy of the state-of-the-art discussion and research gap;
- clarity of the research objective;
- appropriateness of the methodology or design approach;
- originality and scholarly contribution;
- adequacy of evidence and analytical development;
- overall manuscript quality; and
- readiness for external peer review.
The Initial Editorial Assessment may result in one of the following decisions:
- Proceed to Peer Review;
- Revision; or
- Reject Submission.
Manuscripts rejected during the Initial Editorial Assessment are not sent to external reviewers.
Authors receiving a Revision decision at this stage are normally required to submit the revised manuscript within 7 days, unless otherwise specified by the editor.
Estimated Initial Editorial Assessment period: approximately 14 days after administrative completeness has been confirmed.
4. Assignment of Section Editor and Selection of Reviewers
Manuscripts approved for external peer review are assigned to a Section Editor, who identifies suitable reviewers according to the manuscript's subject matter and methodological or theoretical orientation.
Each manuscript is normally evaluated by two independent reviewers.
Reviewers are selected based on:
- expertise relevant to the manuscript;
- an appropriate scholarly publication record in the relevant field, particularly within the previous three years;
- independence from the authors and the submitted work;
- absence of competing interests that could affect impartial judgment;
- ability to provide a substantive and constructive review; and
- willingness to comply with the journal's confidentiality, publication ethics, and peer-review policies.
Where an invited reviewer declines, does not respond, or is unavailable, another qualified reviewer may be invited.
Reviewer selection and invitation typically require approximately 7–14 days, depending on reviewer availability.
5. Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat the manuscript and all related materials as confidential documents.
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and should decline the assignment where their independence or impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
In accordance with the journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, reviewers are not permitted to use generative AI or other AI systems to analyse, evaluate, or prepare review comments on a manuscript. Reviewers must also not upload or enter the manuscript, its figures, data, excerpts, or other confidential materials into an AI application.
The scholarly judgment expressed in the review must be the reviewer's own.
6. Reviewer Evaluation
Once a reviewer accepts the invitation, the reviewer is normally given approximately 28 days to complete the evaluation for that review round.
The 28-day period refers specifically to the time allocated to the reviewer after accepting the review invitation. It does not represent the total duration of the peer-review process.
Reviewers are expected to provide a substantive, objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessment of the manuscript.
The review should consider, where relevant:
- relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
- originality and scholarly contribution;
- adequacy of the research problem, research gap, and objectives;
- appropriateness and transparency of the methodology or design process;
- quality and adequacy of data, visual evidence, or other research materials;
- analytical and interpretive depth;
- engagement with relevant concepts, theories, or previous research;
- critical comparison of findings with existing scholarship;
- coherence between findings, discussion, and conclusion;
- ethical considerations;
- quality and relevance of references; and
- overall readiness for publication.
Reviewers may recommend:
- Accept Submission;
- Revision Required;
- Resubmit for Review; or
- Decline Submission.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final editorial decision.
7. Evaluation of Review Reports and Editorial Decision
After the required review reports have been received, the Section Editor evaluates the reviewers' comments, recommendations, and the scholarly issues identified during review.
Where the reviewers provide substantially different assessments, the Section Editor may:
- evaluate the reports and manuscript further;
- consult the Editor-in-Chief;
- seek advice from an appropriate member of the Editorial Advisory Board; and/or
- invite an additional independent reviewer where necessary.
The editorial decision is based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, the reviewers' substantive assessments, publication ethics, and the journal's editorial standards.
The author receives the editorial decision together with anonymized reviewer comments through OJS.
Possible decisions are:
- Accept Submission;
- Revision Required;
- Resubmit for Review; or
- Decline Submission.
8. Revision Required
A Revision Required decision is normally used when the manuscript requires revision but does not necessarily require a complete new round of external peer review.
Authors are normally given 14 days to submit the revised manuscript.
The revised submission must include:
- the revised manuscript;
- a Response to Reviewers addressing each reviewer comment; and
- any additional files requested by the editorial team.
Minor or moderate revisions may be evaluated directly by the Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief.
Failure to submit the revision within the specified period without prior communication with the editorial office may result in the submission being declined or transferred to a later publication schedule.
9. Resubmit for Review
A Resubmit for Review decision is used when substantial scholarly revision is required and the revised manuscript requires further external evaluation.
Authors are normally given 30 days to prepare and submit the revised manuscript and a detailed Response to Reviewers.
The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by other qualified reviewers where appropriate.
A subsequent review round follows the same substantive review principles. Reviewers are normally given approximately 28 days per additional review round after accepting the review invitation.
Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.
10. Final Editorial Decision
The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration:
- the reviewers' evaluations;
- the revised manuscript;
- the author's responses to reviewer comments;
- the recommendation of the Section Editor;
- compliance with publication ethics; and
- the manuscript's overall scholarly and publication quality.
Before final acceptance, the manuscript may undergo:
- a final similarity check;
- citation and reference verification;
- technical and formatting verification;
- verification of required declarations and ethical documentation; and
- final editorial assessment.
A Letter of Acceptance (LoA) is issued only after the manuscript has formally received an Accepted editorial decision.
Where an Article Processing Charge applies, information regarding the applicable charge and payment procedure is provided only after acceptance and in accordance with the journal's Publication Charges Policy.
11. Copyediting and Production
Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which may include:
- copyediting;
- language and terminology consistency checking;
- citation and reference formatting;
- preparation of figures and tables for publication;
- layout editing;
- metadata verification; and
- preparation of the final galley.
Copyediting and layout editing do not constitute an additional peer-review stage and normally do not involve substantive changes to the accepted scholarly content.
The duration of production may vary according to manuscript complexity, the extent of editorial preparation required, and the journal's publication schedule.
12. Author Proofreading
The final galley proof is sent to the corresponding author for proofreading before online publication.
Authors should check:
- typographical errors;
- author names and affiliations;
- correspondence information;
- figures and tables;
- captions;
- references;
- article metadata; and
- layout or formatting problems.
Substantive additions or major changes to the accepted manuscript are normally not permitted at this stage.
Authors are expected to return proofreading corrections within 7 days of receiving the galley proof.
13. Online Publication
After proofreading has been completed and all required corrections have been incorporated, the article is prepared for online publication.
Publication timing is determined by:
- completion of all editorial and production requirements;
- the journal's regular publication schedule;
- issue availability; and
- where applicable, the journal's Issue in Progress publication model.
Articles are not inserted retrospectively into previously completed issues.
Estimated Processing Timeline
For manuscripts processed through the regular review pathway, the overall process from initial submission to online publication typically takes approximately 3–5 months.
The actual duration may vary depending on:
- reviewer availability;
- the time required to secure two qualified reviewers;
- the number of peer-review rounds;
- the extent of revisions required;
- the authors' response time;
- manuscript complexity;
- ethical or technical verification requirements; and
- completion of the post-acceptance production process.
In some cases, particularly where additional review or substantial revision is required, the overall process may take up to approximately six months.
The approximately 28-day reviewer evaluation period applies to each individual review round after a reviewer has accepted the review invitation and should not be interpreted as the total duration of the peer-review or publication process.
All stated timeframes are indicative rather than guaranteed. Editorial decisions remain based on scholarly quality, publication ethics, and completion of the journal's editorial requirements rather than on a predetermined processing deadline.
