Peer Review Process

Kreativitas Pada Pengabdian Masyarakat (KREPA)

Kreativitas Pada Pengabdian Masyarakat (KREPA) is committed to ensuring the publication of high-quality scholarly articles through a rigorous, transparent, objective, and fair Double-Blind Peer Review process. The journal follows internationally recognized editorial standards and ethical principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Under the Double-Blind Peer Review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to ensure impartiality and eliminate potential bias.

Editorial and Peer Review Workflow

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS). The submission must comply with the journal's author guidelines and include all required metadata and supporting documents.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editorial Office conducts an initial screening to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Fits the journal's aims and scope.

  • Follows the journal template and formatting requirements.

  • Contains complete author information.

  • Meets basic English language standards.

  • Includes all required sections.

  • Shows sufficient originality.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before proceeding to the next stage.

3. Plagiarism Screening

All submitted manuscripts are screened using professional plagiarism detection software.

The acceptable similarity threshold is:

  • Overall Similarity Index: ≤ 20%

  • Single Source Similarity: ≤ 5%

Manuscripts exceeding these limits may be rejected or returned for revision.

4. Editorial Evaluation (Desk Review)

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor evaluates the manuscript based on:

  • Relevance to the journal scope

  • Originality

  • Scientific contribution

  • Practical community impact

  • Methodological quality

  • Ethical compliance

At this stage, the manuscript may be:

  • Proceed to peer review

  • Returned for technical revision

  • Rejected without external review (Desk Rejection)

5. Double-Blind Peer Review

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

During the review process:

  • Authors do not know the reviewers' identities.

  • Reviewers do not know the authors' identities.

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently.

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and novelty

  • Relevance to community service

  • Significance and societal impact

  • Methodological rigor

  • Program implementation

  • Data validity

  • Quality of analysis and discussion

  • Clarity of presentation

  • Quality of references

  • Ethical compliance

Each reviewer provides constructive comments and a recommendation.

6. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The Editor's decision is final.

7. Author Revision

Authors are required to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.

A detailed Response to Reviewers document should accompany the revised manuscript, explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified deadline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from the review process.

8. Second Review (If Necessary)

For manuscripts requiring major revisions, the revised version may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Additional revisions may be requested before a final decision is made.

9. Final Acceptance

Once the manuscript satisfies all reviewer and editor requirements, the Editor-in-Chief issues a final acceptance decision.

The accepted manuscript proceeds to the production stage.

10. Copyediting

Professional copyeditors review the manuscript to improve:

  • Grammar

  • Academic writing style

  • Consistency

  • Formatting

  • Reference style

  • Figure and table presentation

11. Proofreading

Authors receive page proofs to check for:

  • Typographical errors

  • Formatting issues

  • Minor corrections

Only minor corrections are permitted at this stage.

12. Online Publication

Accepted manuscripts are published online in the scheduled issue and assigned:

  • DOI (Digital Object Identifier)

  • Volume and Issue Number

  • Page Numbers (if applicable)

Articles become immediately available under the journal's Open Access policy.

Estimated Review Timeline

Editorial Stage Estimated Time
Initial Editorial Screening 3–7 days
Plagiarism Screening 1–3 days
Desk Evaluation 3–7 days
Peer Review 2–4 weeks
Author Revision 1–3 weeks
Final Decision 3–7 days
Copyediting & Proofreading 1–2 weeks
Publication According to the publication schedule

Average total processing time: 4–8 weeks, depending on the quality of the manuscript and the responsiveness of authors and reviewers.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Expertise in the manuscript's subject area.

  • Relevant academic qualifications.

  • Publication record.

  • Previous reviewing experience.

  • Absence of conflicts of interest.

Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted manuscripts.

Manuscripts may not be:

  • Shared with third parties.

  • Used for personal research.

  • Distributed without editorial permission.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could influence the review process.

Individuals with conflicts of interest will not participate in the review or editorial decision-making process.

Ethical Review Standards

Reviewers are expected to provide evaluations that are:

  • Objective

  • Fair

  • Constructive

  • Evidence-based

  • Free from personal criticism

Reviewers should identify:

  • Scientific weaknesses

  • Ethical concerns

  • Potential plagiarism

  • Citation omissions

  • Methodological issues

Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

The appeal should include:

  • A clear explanation of the reasons for the appeal.

  • Responses to reviewer comments.

  • Supporting evidence, where appropriate.

The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal independently, and the resulting decision will be considered final.

Commitment to Quality

KREPA is dedicated to maintaining a transparent, ethical, and efficient peer review process that ensures the publication of high-quality community service research. By implementing a Double-Blind Peer Review system in accordance with COPE Core Practices, the journal strives to uphold academic integrity, foster scholarly excellence, and promote meaningful contributions to community development.