|Focus & Scope|
|Peer Review Process|
|Open Access Policy|
Peer Review Process
Arthatama uses an online submission and review system. Submission and peer review of each article must be managed using this system and based on the Peer Review Policy. Articles will be published if they strictly follow the author guidelines and preparation of the manuscript. The Editorial Boards of Arthatama is responsible for the selection of papers and the selection of reviewers. Generally, articles will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers will be selected based on their historical experience in reviewing manuscripts or based on their area of specialization double blind review is used for each text where reviewers and authors alike do not know each other's identities.
The review process will consider novelty, objectivity, methods, scientific impact, conclusions, and references. Based on the reviewer's recommendation the editor will send the final decision regarding the submission to the relevant author. The Editorial Boards of Arthatama protects the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers. Authors must sign a Copyright Notice before the text is stated to be published. The Editorial Boards of Arthatama must follow the Journal's policies relating to the disclosure of conflicts of interest by the authors and reviewers.
Manuscripts submitted will be handled first by the editorial board to ensure whether the paper complies with the guidelines set by Arthatama. At this stage the submissions will also be checked for similarity levels. After the initial check is complete, the editor will make one of the following decisions:
Unsubmitted: If the paper contains minor errors that can be easily corrected, the editor may ask the author to correct the formatting or missing information before resubmitting.
Rejected: Papers are rejected before entering the peer review stage. This means that the editor thinks that it is unlikely that the paper will be published in a journal because (1) the subject matter does not match the scope of the journal, and (2) it is not prepared in accordance with reproductive health guidelines.
Assign reviewers: If the paper passes the editor's examination, an invitation will be given to one or more peer reviewers. Most journals require at least two external peer reviewers on a manuscript.
At this stage the peer reviewer will consider whether the substance of the paper meets strong standards in terms of consistency between objectives, research methods, evidence, references, conclusions, and completeness of data, methodological accuracy, novelty, contribution and impact on existing knowledge.
The time required to review varies from paper to paper, from a few weeks to several months depending on the quality of the submission and the availability of reviewers. Please visit the manuscript submission site to check the status of your paper.
After the review is complete, reviewers typically make one of three recommendations to the editor about the submission: accepted as is (rare), minor revision, major revision, rejected.
Immediately after getting the results of the review and recommendations, the Editor will send the manuscript to the author concerned. For manuscripts with rejected status, there is no revision option. In the case of major revisions, authors will be given 4-6 weeks to make revisions and send revised manuscripts. As for minor revisions, the time given is 1-2 weeks.
Revisions may include suggestions for proofreading by natives or experts to ensure language quality. Authors are required to revise the paper as suggested by reviewers and the editorial board, as well as provide feedback on point-by-point comments and suggestions. Authors may request an extension of time to complete revisions if needed. Authors who do not respond or fail to submit revisions within the stipulated time are considered withdrawn from publication.
The editor will review the revised paper to ensure that all comments and responses to the review have been met. Editors may ask peer reviewers to review revisions to ensure comments are handled appropriately.
The revision process can be repeated until the editor can make the right decision to accept the paper. Disapprovals can still occur, even after multiple revisions if comments are not handled properly. Occasionally, a new expert referee will be invited to review the next draft, in which case the paper will go through another round of peer review. While reviewers provide recommendations, editors make the final admission decision.
The editorial board will make the final decision to accept or reject, based on the reviewer's recommendations and their own feedback. Note that the final decision of the paper is entirely in the hands of the Editor in Chief. Papers that are approved for publication will be submitted to the production team for further processing.
The author will get proof of the kitchen from the production team to confirm and finalize the content. At this stage, the author will sign the Copyright Notice and is not allowed for further revision. Authors who do not provide feedback on kitchen evidence within the allotted time are deemed to have approved the version for publication.