Peer Review Process

JGB: Jurnal Guna Bhakti is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal.
Every manuscript submitted to JGB undergoes a peer-review process. Peer review in this journal involves the evaluation of a submitted manuscript by at least two or more reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. The purpose of the review is to determine the academic quality and eligibility of the manuscript for publication.
This process ensures the maintenance of publication quality and scholarly credibility. The peer-review process generally takes about 4 to 12 weeks.

The peer review in JGB follows nine (9) steps, as described below:

1. Submission of the Manuscript

The corresponding author or submitting author sends the manuscript to the journal.
Submissions are made through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.
However, to facilitate authors, JGB may also temporarily accept submissions via email.

2. Editorial Assessment

The submitted manuscript is first assessed by the editorial team of JGB. The editor evaluates its suitability with the journal’s focus and scope. The composition and layout are reviewed based on the Author Guidelines to ensure all required sections and formatting standards are met.
At this stage, the editor also performs an initial quality assessment to detect any significant methodological flaws.
Manuscripts passing this stage are then checked for plagiarism using Turnitin (maximum similarity allowed: 20%) before being forwarded to reviewers.

3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief determines whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal, original, engaging, and of sufficient significance to merit publication.
If not, the manuscript may be rejected without further review.
If accepted for processing, the author may be requested to make minor adjustments before the editor proceeds to the review stage.
(See also Author Acknowledgment and Manuscript Withdrawal Policy.)

4. Reviewer Invitation

The handling editor sends invitations to potential reviewers (also referred to as referees) who are deemed qualified based on expertise, research focus, and absence of conflicts of interest.
The peer-review process at JGB involves a community of experts within the journal’s focus and scope and ensures impartiality through the double-blind review system, meaning that reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.
Manuscripts are sent anonymously to the reviewers.

5. Response to the Invitation

Invited reviewers assess the request based on their expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide whether to accept or decline the invitation.
If a reviewer declines, the editor may ask them to recommend an alternative qualified reviewer.

6. Review Process

Reviewers allocate time to read the manuscript multiple times.
The first reading gives an initial impression of the work. If significant issues are identified, the reviewer may choose to reject the paper at this stage. Otherwise, the manuscript is reread carefully, and detailed notes are made to form a comprehensive, point-by-point evaluation.
The review report is then submitted to the journal, recommending one of the following decisions:
acceptance, rejection, or revision (categorized as major or minor) prior to reconsideration.

7. Journal Evaluation of Reviews

The Editor-in-Chief and the handling editor consider all returned review reports before making a final decision.
If the reviewers’ opinions differ significantly, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further input before a decision is reached.

8. Communication of the Decision

The editor sends a decision email to the author, including relevant comments from reviewers.
Reviewer feedback is shared anonymously with the author for necessary revisions and responses.
At the same time, reviewers receive an acknowledgment or follow-up email informing them of the outcome of their review.

9. Final Steps

If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the copyediting and production stage.
If the manuscript is rejected or returned for revision (major or minor), the handling editor provides constructive feedback from reviewers to help the author improve the paper.
Authors must revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and instructions, then resubmit the revised version to the editor.

If reviewers requested a revision, they are typically invited to review the revised version unless they have opted out of further participation. In cases where only minor revisions were requested, the editor may conduct the review of the revised paper independently.

Once the editor is satisfied with the final version, the manuscript is officially accepted for publication.
Accepted papers are published online and made freely available as downloadable PDF files