Every manuscript that passes initial screening is reviewed by two expert reviewers through a single-blind review process, and the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC).

1. Type of Peer Review

EKBIS applies single-blind review. Reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors, either during the review process or after the article is published.

This model was chosen so that reviewers can assess manuscripts honestly and without pressure. All communication between authors and reviewers takes place through the editor and the OJS system.

2. Initial Screening by the Editor

Every incoming manuscript is first checked by an editor before it is sent to reviewers. The screening covers:

1. Fit with the scope: the topic of the manuscript matches the focus and scope of EKBIS.
2. Compliance with the template: the manuscript uses the EKBIS template, including its structure, length, citation style, and the required declaration of AI use.
3. Similarity check: the level of similarity is checked with plagiarism detection software (Turnitin).

Manuscripts outside the scope are rejected without review (desk rejection). Manuscripts that do not yet follow the template are returned to the authors for correction before entering the review stage.

3. Reviewers

Each manuscript is reviewed by two reviewers with expertise relevant to its topic. The editor selects reviewers based on their field of expertise, publication record, and the absence of any conflict of interest with the authors.

4. Types of Decision and Decision-Maker

The final decision on every manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), taking into account the recommendations of both reviewers and input from the section editor. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, not decisions.

If the two reviewers disagree, the EIC examines both review reports and their arguments. The EIC may (1) make a decision based on their own assessment of the strength of the arguments, or (2) invite a third reviewer to act as an adjudicator. The decision remains with the EIC and is sent to the authors together with all reviewer comments.

5. Processing Time

These times are estimates and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds. Authors who need more time for revision may request an extension from the editor before the deadline.

6. Revision Process

1. Authors revise the manuscript based on the comments of the reviewers and the editor.
2. Authors upload through OJS: (a) the revised manuscript with changes marked (track changes or highlighting), and (b) a response table that addresses every reviewer comment.
3. The response table has three columns: reviewer comment, author response, and location of the change (page/line). Any comment that is not followed must be accompanied by a scientific justification.
4. The editor checks that the revision is complete. When needed, especially for major revisions, the manuscript is sent back to the reviewers for re-review.
5. The EIC makes the decision on the revised manuscript.

A revised manuscript that is not submitted by the deadline without notice may be considered withdrawn by the authors.

7. Conflicts of Interest

EKBIS accepts manuscripts from members of its own editorial board and reviewer team. These manuscripts are treated in the same way as all other manuscripts, with the following additional safeguards:

• An editor or reviewer who is an author is not involved in handling their own manuscript, cannot access the identity of the reviewers, and has no influence on the selection of reviewers.
• The manuscript is handled by another editor who has no relationship with the authors. If the author is the EIC, the decision is delegated to a designated senior editor or deputy editor.
• The manuscript still goes through screening, review by two reviewers, and the same criteria, with no fast track.
• The authors' affiliation with EKBIS is disclosed in the conflict of interest statement of the published article.

Reviewers must decline a review invitation if they have a relationship with the authors. Editors with a similar conflict must hand over the handling of the manuscript to another editor.

8. Confidentiality and Use of AI

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, quote, or use the content of a manuscript for personal benefit. Full provisions are available on the EKBIS AI Tools Policy page.

9. Workflow Diagram

Kebijakan Peer Review

Setiap naskah yang lolos screening awal ditelaah oleh dua reviewer ahli melalui proses single-blind review, dan keputusan akhir ditetapkan oleh Editor in Chief (EIC).

1. Jenis Peer Review

EKBIS menerapkan single-blind review (telaah anonim satu arah). Reviewer mengetahui identitas penulis, tetapi identitas reviewer tidak diungkapkan kepada penulis, baik selama proses telaah maupun setelah artikel terbit.

Model ini dipilih agar reviewer dapat menilai naskah secara jujur dan bebas tekanan. Seluruh komunikasi antara penulis dan reviewer dilakukan melalui editor dan sistem OJS.

2. Screening Awal oleh Editor

Setiap naskah masuk diperiksa terlebih dahulu oleh editor sebelum dikirim ke reviewer. Pemeriksaan meliputi:

1. Kesesuaian scope: topik naskah sejalan dengan fokus dan ruang lingkup EKBIS.
2. Kepatuhan template: naskah menggunakan template EKBIS, termasuk struktur, panjang, gaya sitasi, dan kelengkapan pernyataan penggunaan AI.
3. Pemeriksaan kemiripan: tingkat kemiripan diperiksa dengan perangkat pendeteksi plagiarisme (Turnitin).

Naskah di luar scope ditolak tanpa telaah (desk rejection). Naskah yang belum sesuai template dikembalikan kepada penulis untuk diperbaiki sebelum masuk tahap review.

3. Reviewer

Setiap naskah ditelaah oleh dua reviewer yang memiliki keahlian sesuai topik naskah. Editor memilih reviewer berdasarkan bidang keilmuan, rekam jejak publikasi, dan ketiadaan konflik kepentingan dengan penulis.

4. Jenis Keputusan dan Pengambil Keputusan

Keputusan akhir atas setiap naskah ditetapkan oleh Editor in Chief (EIC) dengan mempertimbangkan rekomendasi kedua reviewer dan masukan editor bagian. Rekomendasi reviewer bersifat pertimbangan, bukan keputusan.

Bila kedua reviewer berbeda pendapat, EIC mempelajari kedua laporan telaah dan argumen masing-masing. EIC dapat (1) mengambil keputusan berdasarkan penilaian sendiri atas bobot argumen, atau (2) mengundang reviewer ketiga sebagai penengah. Keputusan tetap berada pada EIC dan disampaikan kepada penulis beserta seluruh komentar reviewer.

5. Waktu Proses

Waktu di atas merupakan perkiraan dan dapat berubah bergantung pada ketersediaan reviewer dan jumlah putaran revisi. Penulis yang membutuhkan tambahan waktu revisi dapat mengajukan permohonan kepada editor sebelum batas waktu berakhir.

6. Alur Revisi

1. Penulis memperbaiki naskah berdasarkan komentar reviewer dan editor.
2. Penulis mengunggah melalui OJS: (a) naskah revisi dengan perubahan ditandai (track changes atau warna sorotan), dan (b) tabel tanggapan yang menjawab setiap komentar reviewer.
3. Tabel tanggapan memuat tiga kolom: komentar reviewer, tanggapan penulis, dan lokasi perubahan (halaman/baris). Komentar yang tidak diikuti wajib disertai alasan ilmiah.
4. Editor memeriksa kelengkapan revisi. Bila diperlukan, terutama untuk major revision, naskah dikirim kembali kepada reviewer untuk ditinjau ulang.
5. EIC menetapkan keputusan atas naskah revisi.

Naskah revisi yang tidak dikirim hingga batas waktu tanpa pemberitahuan dapat dianggap ditarik oleh penulis.

7. Konflik Kepentingan

EKBIS menerima naskah dari anggota dewan editor dan reviewer EKBIS sendiri, dengan perlakuan yang sama seperti naskah lain dan pengamanan tambahan berikut:

• Editor atau reviewer yang menjadi penulis tidak terlibat dalam penanganan naskahnya sendiri, tidak dapat mengakses identitas reviewer, dan tidak memengaruhi pemilihan reviewer.
• Naskah ditangani oleh editor lain yang tidak memiliki hubungan dengan penulis. Bila penulisnya adalah EIC, keputusan dialihkan kepada editor senior atau wakil editor yang ditunjuk.
• Naskah tetap melalui screening, telaah oleh dua reviewer, dan kriteria yang sama tanpa jalur cepat.
• Afiliasi penulis dengan EKBIS diungkapkan dalam pernyataan konflik kepentingan pada artikel yang terbit.

Reviewer wajib menolak undangan telaah bila memiliki hubungan dengan penulis. Editor yang memiliki konflik serupa menyerahkan penanganan naskah kepada editor lain.

8. Kerahasiaan dan Penggunaan AI

Naskah yang ditelaah adalah dokumen rahasia. Reviewer dan editor tidak boleh membagikan, mengutip, atau memanfaatkan isi naskah untuk kepentingan pribadi. Ketentuan lengkap tersedia di laman Kebijakan Penggunaan AI EKBIS.

9. Diagram Alur