Peer Review Process

Authors should present their papers honestly without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or inappropriate data manipulation. Submitted papers are evaluated by anonymous referees for contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation. The Editor shall inform you of the results of the review as soon as possible, hopefully in 4 to 6 weeks. Indonesian Journal Of Networking, Security, And Internet Of Things uses Double Blind Review policy in which the reviewer's name is always concealed from the submitting author. Papers will be sent for anonymous review by at least two reviewers who will either be members of the Editorial Board or others of similar standing in the field. In order to shorten the review process and respond quickly to authors, the Editors may triage a submission and come to a decision without sending the paper for external review. The Editors’ decision is final and no correspondence can be entered into concerning manuscripts considered unsuitable for publication in this ournal. All correspondence, including notification of the Editors’ decision and requests for revisions, will be sent by email.

 

To be accepted, an article must pass the following peer-review requirements:

1. The subject is included in the scope of the journal
2. Papers must follow the Research Manuscript guidelines
3. Manuscripts are only sent via online delivery. All authors must register or log in first before submitting a manuscript
4. The manuscript must have received approval from the Research editor-in-chief
5. The manuscript will be reviewed by reviewers after receiving approval from the editor-in-chief
6. The journal editor will make a decision (Accepted/Revision Required/Rejected) for the manuscript by considering the reviewer's recommendations.

 

The main factors reviewers should provide advice on are the originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript's subject matter to the readership of the Indonesian Journal Of Networking, Security, And Internet Of Things. Questions to consider are:

1. Is the submission original?
2. Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
3. Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
4. Does the paper help to expand or further research in this subject area?
5. Does it significantly build on (the author's) previous work?
6. Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
7. Is the paper complete? Is there an abstract or summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section?
8. Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
9. Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?
10. Should it be shortened and reconsidered in another form?
11. Would you recommend that the author reconsider the paper for a related or alternative journal?
12. Is the submission in Standard English to aid the understanding of the reader?

 

Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed comments. Some things that reviewers need to pay attention to are:

1. This should be appropriate to convey to the author: use comments to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on unclear matters and for further explanation.
2. If you have time, suggest how the author could improve the clarity, conciseness, and overall quality of the presentation.
3. Confirm whether you think the subject of the paper is interesting enough to justify its length; if you are recommending shortening, it would be useful to the author if you could point out specific areas that you think need shortening.
4. It is not the reviewer's job to edit the paper in English, but it will be useful if you correct English where the technical meaning is unclear.
5. A reviewer may disagree with the author's opinion, but must allow that opinion to stand, as long as the opinion is consistent with the existing evidence.

6. Remember that the writer will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.