Peer Review Process
DEDICA (Journal of Research and Community Service) implements a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all published articles. The peer-review system is designed to evaluate the scientific quality of manuscripts objectively and to provide constructive feedback for authors to improve their scholarly work. DEDICA applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process to maintain fairness, independence, and impartiality.
Initial Manuscript Screening
All manuscripts submitted to DEDICA (Journal of Research and Community Service) undergo an initial screening process conducted by the editorial team before entering the peer-review stage. At this stage, the editor evaluates each manuscript to ensure its compliance with the journal’s focus and scope, submission guidelines, academic standards, originality, and ethical requirements. The initial screening process includes verification of manuscript completeness and adherence to the journal’s formatting requirements, assessment of the manuscript’s relevance to the aims and scope of DEDICA, preliminary evaluation of the originality and scientific contribution of the submitted work, plagiarism screening using appropriate detection tools, and identification of potential ethical issues or conflicts of interest that may affect the publication process.
Manuscripts that do not fulfill the basic requirements of the journal, including issues related to scope, academic quality, originality, completeness, or ethical standards, may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected before proceeding to the peer-review process. This initial evaluation is conducted to ensure that only manuscripts meeting the minimum scholarly and ethical criteria are forwarded for further scientific review.
Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening process are assigned to qualified reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the subject area of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic competence, research experience, publication records, and familiarity with the specific topics addressed in the manuscript. DEDICA ensures that each reviewer has appropriate expertise in the relevant field of study, has no conflicts of interest with the authors or the research being evaluated, and conducts the review process objectively, independently, professionally, and confidentially. Reviewers are expected to provide evaluations based on the scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality, and academic contribution of the manuscript rather than personal preferences or subjective considerations.
Each manuscript submitted to DEDICA is generally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers to ensure a balanced, comprehensive, and fair evaluation process. The involvement of multiple reviewers allows the journal to obtain diverse academic perspectives and supports the editor in making informed decisions regarding manuscript improvement, acceptance, or rejection.
Double-Blind Review Process
DEDICA applies a double-blind peer-review mechanism, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the evaluation process. Under this system, reviewers do not have access to information regarding the identity of the authors, and authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers. This approach is implemented to minimize potential bias, maintain fairness and objectivity, and ensure that manuscripts are evaluated solely based on their scientific merit, methodological rigor, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and contribution to the development of knowledge. Through the double-blind review process, DEDICA seeks to uphold academic integrity and ensure that publication decisions are based on the quality and significance of the scholarly work presented.
Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using established academic criteria to ensure the quality, relevance, and scientific contribution of each article. The evaluation process begins with an assessment of the title and abstract, focusing on their clarity, accuracy, and ability to represent the overall content of the research. Reviewers examine the alignment between the title, abstract, research objectives, and main findings to ensure consistency and accuracy in presenting the study.
In the introduction and literature review section, reviewers assess the clarity of the research background, the formulation of research problems, and the relevance of the theoretical framework and previous studies. Reviewers also evaluate whether the manuscript clearly identifies research gaps and demonstrates the contribution of the study to existing knowledge.
Regarding the methodology, reviewers evaluate the appropriateness of the research design, methods, and analytical approaches used in the study. They assess the clarity of data collection procedures, data analysis techniques, and the extent to which the research methods demonstrate validity and reliability to support the credibility of the findings.
In the results and discussion section, reviewers examine the clarity and accuracy of data presentation, the depth of analysis and interpretation, and the relationship between research findings, theoretical perspectives, and previous studies. Reviewers also evaluate the extent to which the findings contribute to scientific advancement, practical applications, and community development.
For the conclusion and implications section, reviewers assess the consistency between research objectives, findings, and conclusions. They also evaluate whether the manuscript provides meaningful implications, including theoretical contributions, practical applications, or policy recommendations based on the research results.
The evaluation also covers references and academic writing quality, including the accuracy and relevance of citations, compliance with academic writing standards, and the use of appropriate, credible, and up-to-date scholarly sources to support the arguments presented in the manuscript.
For community service articles, reviewers additionally evaluate the relevance of the community issues addressed, the effectiveness of intervention methods, the level of community participation and empowerment approaches, as well as the sustainability and impact of the implemented programs. These aspects are assessed to ensure that community service articles provide meaningful contributions, demonstrate measurable outcomes, and support sustainable community development.
Reviewer Recommendations
After completing the evaluation process, reviewers provide recommendations to the editor regarding the status of the submitted manuscript. The recommendations may include acceptance of the submission when the manuscript meets the required academic and ethical standards without requiring significant revisions. Reviewers may also recommend minor revision when the manuscript requires limited improvements before it can be accepted, or major revision when substantial improvements are needed and the manuscript may require further evaluation after revision. In cases where the manuscript does not meet the required scientific, methodological, or ethical standards, reviewers may recommend rejection of the submission.
Reviewers are expected to provide clear, constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments to support authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts. The feedback provided should focus on enhancing the scientific rigor, clarity, originality, and overall contribution of the article while assisting editors in making fair and informed publication decisions.
Editorial Decision
The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor based on a comprehensive evaluation of the reviewer comments and recommendations, the scientific quality and originality of the manuscript, its compliance with the journal’s policies and publication standards, as well as relevant ethical considerations. The editor carefully considers all aspects of the review process to ensure that each publication decision reflects academic quality, integrity, and the objectives of the journal. The editor may accept the manuscript, request revisions, or reject the submission while maintaining independence, objectivity, transparency, and fairness throughout the decision-making process.
Revision Process
Authors who receive revision requests are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the comments and recommendations provided by reviewers and editors. Authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript that clearly reflects the improvements and modifications made during the revision process, along with a response letter explaining how each reviewer’s comment and suggestion has been addressed. The response should provide clear and detailed explanations regarding the revisions undertaken or the reasons for maintaining certain aspects of the manuscript when necessary. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial changes are required or when the manuscript undergoes a major revision process, to ensure that the improvements adequately address the issues identified during the review stage.
Final Acceptance and Publication
After the manuscript successfully completes the review and revision process, it proceeds to the final stages of publication, which include final editorial checking, language editing and formatting, proofreading, and online publication. During these stages, the editorial team ensures that the manuscript meets the journal’s quality standards, follows the required formatting guidelines, and is presented accurately and professionally before publication. Once published, articles become part of the permanent scholarly record of DEDICA (Journal of Research and Community Service) and are made publicly available through the journal’s open-access platform to support the dissemination of knowledge and provide wider access for researchers, academics, practitioners, and the community.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers participating in the DEDICA (Journal of Research and Community Service) review process are required to uphold the highest standards of professionalism, confidentiality, and academic integrity throughout the evaluation process. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all information contained in the manuscript and ensure that their assessments are conducted objectively, fairly, and professionally based on scientific quality and academic standards. Reviewers should avoid personal criticism, inappropriate comments, or judgments unrelated to the scholarly content of the manuscript. They are also required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of their evaluation and must refrain from using unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal, academic, or professional advantage. In addition, reviewers are expected to report any suspected ethical violations, including plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or other forms of research misconduct, to the editor for further investigation and appropriate action. publication.
Commitment to Review Quality
DEDICA continuously improves its peer-review system to maintain high standards of academic integrity, transparency, and publication quality. Through a rigorous and ethical review process, the journal aims to ensure that every published article provides meaningful contributions to scientific development, innovation, and community empowerment.
