Jurnal Desain applies a double-blind peer-review process to evaluate the scholarly quality, methodological soundness, analytical depth, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts in design, visual art, visual communication, visual culture, and related fields.
Reviewers provide an independent scholarly assessment and recommendation to the journal. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized editorial team.
Reviewers are expected to focus primarily on the substantive scholarly quality of the manuscript rather than copyediting, formatting, or minor language correction.
Reviewers are selected based on the relevance of their expertise to the manuscript, verifiable academic identity and affiliation, recent scholarly publication record, independence, and availability.
Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should ensure that the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and that they can complete the review within the deadline stated in the invitation.
Any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest must be disclosed to the editor before the assignment is accepted.
All manuscripts and peer-review materials must be treated as confidential.
Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, quote, or use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal, scholarly, commercial, or competitive purposes. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the author(s), contact the author(s) directly, or share the manuscript with colleagues, students, assistants, or other third parties without prior editorial permission.
If the identity of an author becomes apparent and this may affect the reviewer’s impartiality, the reviewer should inform the editor.
The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the peer-review process is prohibited.
Reviewers must conduct the assessment personally and independently. Manuscripts, abstracts, figures, tables, data, excerpts, review materials, or unpublished information must not be uploaded to generative AI or other AI-based systems.
AI must not be used to summarize, analyze, evaluate, score, interpret, translate, generate, rewrite, or substantively edit reviewer comments or recommendations.
The reviewer remains fully responsible for confidentiality, scholarly judgment, and the content of the submitted review.
The review should assess the manuscript as a scholarly argument and determine whether its evidence, analysis, and interpretation support its stated contribution.
Assess whether the title is accurate, specific, concise, informative, and representative of the manuscript’s principal scholarly focus or important finding.
Assess whether the abstract clearly presents the research objective, method or approach, principal findings, and conclusion, and whether the keywords adequately represent the article’s core concepts, research object, and/or analytical approach.
Assess whether the manuscript establishes an adequate scholarly context, critically positions relevant previous studies, identifies a defensible research gap, justifies the novelty or original contribution, and formulates a clear research objective.
Novelty should not rely solely on the use of a different object, location, medium, or case without a meaningful conceptual, analytical, methodological, or theoretical contribution.
Assess whether the method or research approach is appropriate to the objective and is described with sufficient transparency.
Where relevant, reviewers should consider the research object or corpus, data sources, sampling or selection criteria, data collection or evidence-generation procedures, analytical procedures, validity or trustworthiness, and potential limitations or bias.
Assess whether identifiable evidence or data support the principal findings and whether the discussion progresses beyond description toward scholarly interpretation.
Particular attention should be given to the relationship between:
evidence/data → principal finding → interpretation → theoretical or conceptual engagement → critical comparison or synthesis with previous research → scholarly contribution.
For design and visual studies, assess whether figures, images, tables, diagrams, artefacts, interfaces, prototypes, or other visual materials are readable, appropriately sourced and cited, and meaningfully integrated into the scholarly argument.
Visual materials should function as scholarly evidence rather than merely as illustration or decoration.
Assess whether the conclusion directly answers the research objective, accurately summarizes the principal findings, states the scholarly contribution proportionally to the evidence, and addresses implications and/or limitations where relevant.
Assess the relevance, adequacy, recency, scholarly quality, bibliographic consistency, and appropriate use of references.
Jurnal Desain requires a minimum of 15 references, with more than 80% consisting of primary scholarly or research-based sources and more than 80% published within the last 10 years.
Reviewers should also note material citation-reference inconsistencies, unverifiable references, or systematic problems with APA 7th edition where these affect scholarly reliability.
A peer review should provide substantive and constructive scholarly feedback.
Comments limited mainly to grammar, spelling, typography, formatting, or layout do not constitute an adequate substantive peer review.
Reviewer comments should identify the specific scholarly issue, explain why it matters, and indicate the direction of revision without rewriting the manuscript for the author.
Reviewers should avoid generic comments, personal or dismissive language, unnecessary requests for additional citations, coercive citation, or imposing a preferred theory or method when the author’s approach remains academically appropriate to the research objective.
Reviewer comments should be manuscript-specific, evidence-based, respectful, concise, and actionable.
Where an annotated manuscript is used, margin comments should be applied selectively to identify representative and substantive revision points. Repetitive language corrections should normally be avoided because such matters can be addressed during copyediting.
The annotated manuscript or supplementary review file may be uploaded through the OJS review workflow.
Reviewers should select the recommendation that best reflects the severity and correctability of the scholarly issues identified in the manuscript.
| Recommendation | Appropriate when |
|---|---|
| Accept Submission | The manuscript is publishable without substantive revision or requires only negligible correction. |
| Revisions Required | Remaining issues are minor or moderate and can be corrected without a full new round of peer review. |
| Resubmit for Review | Substantive weaknesses require major revision and another round of peer review. |
| Decline Submission | Fatal or cumulative substantive problems make the manuscript unsuitable for normal revision. |
The number of reviewer comments should not determine the recommendation. The recommendation should instead reflect the severity, significance, and correctability of the identified scholarly issues.
The reviewer recommendation does not constitute the final publication decision.
Confidential comments should be used only for matters that should not be communicated directly to the author, including concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, image or data integrity, authorship, conflict of interest, journal scope, or other publication-integrity issues.
Where evidence is uncertain, reviewers should report the concern for editorial verification rather than make an unsupported allegation.
The peer review must be completed through the Jurnal Desain OJS review workflow.
Reviewer comments should be entered in the designated review fields, and an annotated manuscript or supplementary review file may be uploaded where appropriate. Reviewers must also select one recommendation through the OJS reviewer recommendation menu.
Substantive peer-review reports should not be submitted only through personal email, messaging applications, or other informal communication channels.
By accepting a review assignment, the reviewer confirms that the manuscript and review materials will be treated confidentially; relevant conflicts of interest have been disclosed; no AI tool will be used in the peer-review process; the assessment will be conducted independently and substantively; and the completed review will be submitted through OJS within the assigned deadline.
| EDITORIAL & REVIEW |
| Editorial Team |
| Reviewers |
| Reviewer Guidelines |
| Peer Review Process |
| FOR AUTHORS |
| Author Guidelines |
| Article Template |
| Author Integrity Declaration |
| Publication Charges |
| Fast-Track Review |
| Submit a Manuscript |
| JOURNAL POLICIES |
| JOURNAL INFORMATION |
| Abstracting & Indexing |
| Journal History |
| Contact Us |
| Supported by |
| Certificate |
| Tools |
| Citation Analysis |
All submissions must meet the journal’s basic administrative requirements before entering the Initial Editorial Assessment stage.
A submission may be returned to the author before editorial assessment if:
An administrative return is not a peer-review decision and does not constitute rejection based on the scholarly merit of the manuscript.
Editorial Office:
Institute for Research and Community services (LRPM)
Universitas Indraprasta PGRI
Address: Jl. Nangka No. 58 C (TB. Simatupang), Kel. Tanjung Barat, Kec. Jagakarsa, Jakarta Selatan 12530, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Phone: +62 (021) 7818718 – 78835283 | Close in sunday and public holidays in Indonesia
Work Hours: 09.00 AM – 08.00 PM
Best hours to visit: From 9 am to 11 am or after 3 pm. The busiest times are between 11 am and 3 pm.
This Work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
