1. Peer Review Policy

To ensure the quality, rigor, originality, and relevance of published articles, Spektrum Industri implements a systematic, objective, and impartial peer-review process. Manuscripts are evaluated by qualified experts in the relevant fields to ensure their scientific merit and contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

The journal adopts a single-blind peer-review system, in which reviewers know the identities of the authors, while the identities of the reviewers remain confidential to the authors.

2. Review Process

The peer-review process consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

   Each submitted manuscript is initially evaluated by an editor to determine its suitability for the journal's focus and scope, compliance with the author guidelines, methodological soundness, and originality. The manuscript is also screened for similarity using Turnitin or an equivalent plagiarism-detection tool. Based on this initial assessment, the manuscript may be rejected or proceed to the peer-review stage.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

   Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The review process follows the journal's single-blind peer-review policy.

3. Review Evaluation

   Reviewers assess the manuscript and submit their comments, recommendations, and suggested decisions to the editor. The editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and considers the manuscript's scientific quality, relevance, originality, and compliance with publication standards.

4. Editorial Decision

   The editor communicates the decision to the corresponding author, together with the reviewers' comments and any required revisions. The decision may be rejection, acceptance subject to major revisions, acceptance subject to minor revisions, or acceptance.

5. Revision and Re-evaluation

   Authors must revise their manuscripts in response to the reviewers' comments and editorial recommendations. Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the editor and, where necessary, returned to the reviewers for further assessment. Based on the revised manuscript, the editor may accept, request further revisions, or reject the submission.

6. Copyediting and Layout Editing

   Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and layout editing to ensure consistency, clarity, and compliance with the journal's publication format. The manuscript is then prepared for publication.

3. Review Outcomes

Based on the peer-review reports and editorial assessment, the editor makes the final decision regarding publication. The possible outcomes are as follows:

1. Reject

   The manuscript is rejected and will not be published in the journal. The authors are not permitted to resubmit a revised version of the same manuscript as a continuation of the rejected submission.

2. Accept with Major Revisions

   The manuscript requires substantial revisions to address significant concerns raised by the reviewers or editor. The revised manuscript will be evaluated again before a final publication decision is made.

3. Accept with Minor Revisions

   The manuscript requires limited revisions to address specific comments or improve its clarity and presentation. The editor will evaluate the revised manuscript to ensure that the required changes have been adequately addressed before publication.

4. Accept

   The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form without further substantive revisions.

4. Reviewers' Responsibilities

In accordance with the principles of peer review promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), reviewers invited by Spektrum Industri are expected to fulfill the following responsibilities:

1. Critically and constructively evaluate manuscripts and provide detailed comments to help authors improve their research.

2. Review revised versions of manuscripts when necessary.

3. Submit review reports and all required information within the established deadlines.

4. Provide recommendations to the editor regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication.

5. Disclose any potential conflicts of interest involving the authors, the research, or the manuscript's content.

6. Report suspected research or publication misconduct to the editor.

7. Suggest alternative reviewers if unable to review a manuscript for any reason.

8. Treat submitted manuscripts and related information as confidential documents.

9. Refrain from using unpublished information or ideas obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.

10. Avoid communicating directly with authors about the manuscript outside the journal's established editorial process.

11. Maintain reviewer confidentiality and not disclose their identities to the authors.

12. Not transfer an assigned manuscript to another reviewer without the editor's authorization.

13. Assess the manuscript's originality, scientific quality, methodological rigor, and contribution to the relevant field.

14. Inform the editor if they become aware that the manuscript is under consideration elsewhere or has been published in another publication.

15. Prepare review reports in English.

16. Where specifically invited and appropriate, contribute a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.

5. Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

During the review process, reviewers are expected to assess the following aspects:

1. Novelty: The extent to which the manuscript presents new findings, approaches, or insights.

2. Originality: Whether the manuscript represents original scholarly work and appropriately acknowledges existing research.

3. Scientific Reliability: The soundness of the research design, methods, data analysis, and interpretation.

4. Contribution to Science: The significance and value of the research to the relevant scientific or academic field.

5. Advancement of Existing Knowledge: The extent to which the manuscript adds new perspectives, findings, or approaches to the existing body of knowledge.

6. Ethical Compliance: Compliance with applicable research ethics and publication ethics standards.

7. Article Structure and Formatting: Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and the appropriateness of the manuscript's organization.

8. References and Citations: The relevance, adequacy, accuracy, and appropriateness of the references used to support the manuscript.

9. Language and Presentation: The quality of grammar, punctuation, spelling, clarity, and academic writing.

10. Research Misconduct: Any indications of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, duplicate publication, or other forms of research or publication misconduct.