Peer Review Process

The peer review process is an essential part of maintaining the high academic and scientific standards of the Indonesian Journal of Coastal & Ocean Engineering (IJCOE). We follow a rigorous, transparent, and double-blind peer review process to ensure that the quality, validity, and originality of research published in the journal meet the highest standards of excellence in coastal and ocean engineering.

1. Manuscript Submission

  • Authors submit their manuscripts via the online submission system on the IJCOE The manuscript should adhere to the Author Guidelines for formatting and submission requirements.
  • Upon submission, the manuscript is initially reviewed by the editorial team for adherence to the journal's scope and basic quality standards.

2. Initial Screening

  • The editorial team conducts an initial screening of each manuscript to ensure it meets the basic criteria for publication, including:
    • Compliance with the journal's scope and focus.
    • Proper formatting and adherence to Author Guidelines.
    • Originality and relevance of the research.
  • If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it moves on to the peer review process. If it does not meet these criteria, it may be rejected at this stage.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

  • IJCOE follows a double-blind peer review process, which means that both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other during the review process.
  • The manuscript is sent to two or more independent experts in the field of coastal and ocean engineering. These reviewers are selected based on their expertise and experience relevant to the topic of the manuscript.
  • Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on the following criteria:
    • Scientific quality: The soundness and rigor of the research methodology and data analysis.
    • Originality and significance: The novelty and importance of the research contribution to the field.
    • Clarity and structure: The clarity of writing, the organization of the manuscript, and the appropriateness of the figures and tables.
    • References and citations: The proper citation of previous work and up-to-date references in the field.
    • Ethical standards: Assurance that the manuscript adheres to ethical research standards and guidelines.

4. Reviewer Feedback and Decision

  • Reviewers submit their feedback and recommendations to the editorial team. The possible outcomes of the review process are:
    • Accept as is: The manuscript is accepted for publication without any revisions.
    • Minor revisions: The manuscript is accepted, but the authors must address specific minor issues before it can be published.
    • Major revisions: The manuscript is considered for publication, but it requires significant revisions. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised manuscript for further review.
    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in IJCOE.
  • Based on the reviewers' feedback and recommendations, the editor makes the final decision. The decision is communicated to the corresponding author, along with the reviewers' comments.

5. Revision Process

  • If revisions are required, the authors are expected to make the necessary changes and resubmit the manuscript within the specified timeframe.
  • The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers or to new reviewers to ensure that the revisions meet the required standards.
  • The editorial team works closely with the authors to ensure that the revised manuscript is of the highest quality before being accepted for publication.

6. Final Acceptance and Publication

  • After the manuscript has passed peer review and been accepted, the corresponding author is notified of the acceptance and the article is scheduled for publication.
  • The final version of the manuscript is copy-edited, formatted, and prepared for publication in an issue of IJCOE.
  • The accepted article is then published in Open Access, making it freely available to readers worldwide.

7. Reviewer Guidelines

  • Reviewers are asked to provide constructive and detailed feedback to help authors improve the quality of their work. This includes:
    • Commenting on the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses.
    • Providing suggestions for improvement.
    • Indicating any potential issues with the methodology, data, or analysis.
    • Pointing out missing references or areas that require further explanation.
  • Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within a reasonable timeframe (typically 2-3 weeks).

8. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

  • All manuscripts and reviews are treated with strict confidentiality. Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts impartially and without any conflict of interest.
  • Reviewers must not use any information from the manuscripts for personal gain or disclose any content prior to publication.

The peer review process in the Indonesian Journal of Coastal and Ocean Engineering (IJCOE) is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Peer review process IJCOE