PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process in Wikara National Economic and Social Research Development is designed to ensure that published research is of high quality, contributes valuable knowledge to the field, and meets ethical standards. It also provides authors with constructive feedback to improve their work. The peer review process in a scientific journal is a critical step in ensuring the quality, validity, and significance of submitted research.

  1. Submission:
  • The author submits a manuscript to Wikara National Economic and Social Research Development journal through its online submission system.
  • The submission includes the manuscript, abstract, cover letter, and any other required documents.
  1. Initial Editorial Assessment:
  • The journal's editorial team of Wikara National Economic and Social Research Development journal conducts a preliminary assessment to ensure the manuscript fits the journal's scope and meets basic quality standards.
  • The editor of Wikara National Economic and Social Research Development journal checks for originality, relevance, and adherence to the journal's formatting guidelines.
  • If the manuscript is deemed unsuitable, it may be rejected outright or returned to the author for revisions.
  1. Assignment to an Editor:
  • If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, it is assigned to an editor with expertise in the relevant field.
  1. Selecting Reviewers:
  • The editor selects several (typically 2-4) experts in the field to review the manuscript.
  • Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, previous reviews, and potential conflicts of interest.
  1. Review Process:
  • Reviewers are invited and agree to review the manuscript.
  • Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript, focusing on aspects such as the originality of the research, the validity of the methodology, the accuracy of the results, and the significance of the findings.
  • Reviewers provide detailed comments and suggestions, and may recommend acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.
  1. Reviewers’ Reports:
  • Reviewers submit their reports to the editor, along with their recommendations.
  • Reviewers' comments are typically anonymous to the authors to maintain objectivity.
  1. Editorial Decision:
  • The editor considers the reviewers' feedback and makes an initial decision on the manuscript.
  • Possible decisions include acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.
  • The editor communicates this decision to the author, along with the reviewers' comments and any required changes.
  1. Revisions:
  • If revisions are required, the author addresses the reviewers' comments and submits a revised manuscript.
  • The revised manuscript may undergo additional rounds of review if the changes are substantial.
  1. Final Decision:
  • Once the reviewers and editor are satisfied with the revisions, the editor makes a final decision on the manuscript.
  • The manuscript is either accepted for publication or rejected.
  1. Publication:
  • Accepted manuscripts go through copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading.
  • The final version is published in the journal, both online and in print (if applicable).
  1. Post-Publication:
  • Published articles may be subject to post-publication review and commentary.
  • Authors and readers can engage in discussions about the published research, and corrections or retractions can be issued if necessary.