Peer Review Process

Sriwijaya Journal of Environment operates a rigorous double-blind peer-review process in which the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed. The process is designed to be fair, constructive, timely, and fully auditable.

Editorial workflow

  1. Initial editorial screening — the Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor checks each submission for scope, completeness, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and originality (similarity screening). Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope or fail to meet basic standards are desk-rejected with a clear explanation.
  2. Reviewer assignment — at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise are invited from the journal’s reviewer database. Reviewers are identified and verified through institutional affiliation and ORCID/Scopus records, and must declare any conflict of interest before accepting.
  3. Review — reviewers assess novelty, methodological rigour, ethical compliance, validity of results, quality of discussion and references, and clarity, and provide a recommendation with substantive justification.
  4. Decision — the handling editor reaches a decision (reject, major revision, minor revision, or accept) on the basis of the reviews. Where the editorial decision differs from the reviewers’ recommendations, the rationale is documented.
  5. Revision and re-review — revised manuscripts are returned to reviewers where appropriate, accompanied by a point-by-point response from the authors.
  6. Production — accepted manuscripts proceed to copy-editing, layout, proofing, DOI assignment, and publication.

Standards and transparency

  • A minimum of two independent reviewers is required for every research article.
  • The typical time to first decision is four to eight weeks.
  • Submission and editorial dates (received, revised, accepted, published) are recorded in the editorial system and displayed on every published article.
  • Authors may, optionally, suggest potential reviewers; such suggestions are verified independently and the editor is not bound to use them. Authors may also request the exclusion of specific reviewers, with reasons.

•  Editorial decisions are independent of any payment and of the authors’ institutional affiliation.