Tepak Sirih: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Madani applies a rigorous peer-review process to maintain the quality, relevance, and integrity of the community service work it publishes.

All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment followed, where appropriate, by independent peer review. The journal applies a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. Manuscripts that proceed to peer review are normally evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Submission and Administrative Check

The editorial office checks the submitted manuscript for completeness, compliance with the journal's author guidelines and template, required declarations, and supporting information.

2. Desk Review and Initial Editorial Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, the clarity of the community problem addressed, the appropriateness of the approach, research and reporting integrity, and overall suitability for peer review. At this stage the manuscript is screened for similarity using Turnitin or iThenticate, with a maximum similarity index of 25%. Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially deficient, fail to comply with essential requirements, or present significant ethical concerns may be declined without external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess relevant expertise. Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the evaluation.

4. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Reviewers receive an anonymized version of the manuscript, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to the authors. Authors are therefore expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that does not reveal their identities within the anonymized manuscript file.

5. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on scholarly and practical grounds appropriate to community service, which may include relevance to community needs, clarity of the problem and partner context, appropriateness of the implementation method, community participation, the significance and measurability of outcomes, prospects for sustainability, ethical considerations, and clarity of presentation.

6. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' reports and the editor's own assessment, an editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author. Possible decisions include Accept Submission; Revisions Required (Minor Revision); Resubmit for Review (Major Revision); or Decline Submission.

7. Author Revision

When revision is requested, authors should address the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully and provide a revised manuscript together with a clear response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

8. Re-Evaluation

A revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor or returned to the original or additional reviewers, particularly when substantial revisions have been requested. Additional rounds of revision may be required before a final decision is reached.

9. Final Decision

The final decision rests with the responsible editor, based on the manuscript's quality, reviewer reports, revisions, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not themselves constitute the final publication decision.

Review Timeline

The journal seeks to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining appropriate standards. Reviewers are normally requested to complete an individual review assignment within approximately four weeks. The actual time to a decision may vary with reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revision rounds, and the responsiveness of the authors. The stated period is a target rather than a guarantee.

Reviewer Independence and Confidentiality

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or interest that could reasonably affect their impartiality and should decline an invitation when a conflict may compromise an independent assessment. Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents and must not be disclosed, distributed, or used for any purpose without authorization.

Editorial Independence

The final decision on publication rests with the responsible editor and is based on merit, relevance, integrity, peer-review reports, and compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical policies, as set out in the journal's Publication Ethics policy. Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled independently by another editor. The entire process is conducted through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.