Peer Review Process

Reviewer Policy

Jurnal Evolusi

Jurnal Evolusi, published by Universiti Poly-Tech Malaysia (UPTM), is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, independent, ethical, and constructive peer-review process. Peer review serves as an important quality assurance mechanism to ensure that manuscripts published by the journal demonstrate scholarly relevance, methodological validity, originality, theoretical or conceptual contribution, research transparency, and academic integrity.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review

Jurnal Evolusi adopts a double-blind peer-review process, whereby:

  • the identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers;

  • the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors;

  • authors are required to remove identifying information from the manuscript submitted for review; and

  • reviewers must not attempt to identify or contact the authors.

The editorial team will take reasonable measures to maintain anonymity throughout the peer-review process.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before being considered for external peer review.

The editorial team will assess whether the manuscript:

  • falls within the aims and scope of Jurnal Evolusi;

  • follows the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript requirements;

  • demonstrates adequate scholarly quality;

  • presents a clear research problem;

  • contains clearly stated research objectives or research questions;

  • provides an appropriate theoretical or conceptual foundation;

  • demonstrates sufficient originality or contribution;

  • provides adequate methodological information;

  • complies with relevant research and publication ethics requirements;

  • contains the necessary declarations, where applicable; and

  • complies with the journal's similarity and originality requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum editorial or scholarly requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review.

3. Selection and Appointment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • expertise relevant to the manuscript;

  • appropriate methodological knowledge;

  • academic or professional experience;

  • research and publication experience in the relevant field;

  • independence from the authors and their institutions, where reasonably identifiable by the editorial team; and

  • absence of known conflicts of interest.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, or where specialist expertise is required, the Editor may appoint an additional reviewer.

4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should conduct a systematic assessment of the manuscript based on the following areas.

A. Originality and Theoretical/Conceptual Contribution – 20%

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript:

  • addresses a relevant and meaningful research problem;

  • demonstrates originality or novelty;

  • contributes to existing theoretical or conceptual knowledge;

  • tests, extends, integrates, applies, or challenges existing theories or concepts where appropriate;

  • offers meaningful empirical, contextual, methodological, policy, professional, or practical insights; and

  • clearly explains its contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

Novelty should be considered in relation to the nature and discipline of the study. A meaningful contribution may arise not only from a new theory but also from new evidence, context, methodology, interpretation, or application.

B. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation – 15%

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • the literature review is relevant to the research problem;

  • appropriate recent and foundational literature has been considered;

  • major arguments are adequately supported by scholarly sources;

  • the theoretical or conceptual framework is clearly presented, where applicable;

  • research questions, objectives, hypotheses, or propositions are logically derived from the literature; and

  • the manuscript identifies an appropriate research gap.

C. Methodological Validity – 25%

Methodological validity is a major component of the Jurnal Evolusi review process.

Depending on the research approach, reviewers should consider:

  • appropriateness of the research design;

  • population and sampling procedures;

  • sample size and justification;

  • data sources;

  • data collection procedures;

  • research instruments;

  • measurement and operationalisation of variables;

  • validity and reliability;

  • qualitative research credibility and trustworthiness, where applicable;

  • quantitative or statistical techniques, where applicable;

  • appropriateness of data analysis;

  • alignment between research objectives, methodology, findings, and conclusions; and

  • limitations that may affect the validity or interpretation of the findings.

Reviewers should clearly identify methodological weaknesses that could materially affect the reliability, validity, credibility, or interpretation of the research.

D. Results, Discussion and Conclusion – 20%

Reviewers should determine whether:

  • findings are presented clearly and accurately;

  • tables, figures, quotations, themes, models, or statistical results are appropriately reported;

  • results address the stated research objectives or research questions;

  • interpretations are supported by the evidence presented;

  • findings are appropriately discussed in relation to relevant literature;

  • theoretical, practical, social, professional, or policy implications are sufficiently explained, where relevant;

  • study limitations are appropriately acknowledged; and

  • conclusions are consistent with the evidence and do not overstate the findings.

E. Research Transparency, Ethics and Data Availability – 10%

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript appropriately addresses:

  • research ethics approval, where applicable;

  • informed consent, where applicable;

  • confidentiality and protection of participants;

  • conflict of interest;

  • funding information;

  • acknowledgement;

  • data availability; and

  • other relevant ethical and transparency declarations.

Authors should provide a Data Availability Statement indicating whether and under what conditions the data supporting the findings can be accessed.

Where data cannot be publicly shared because of confidentiality, privacy, ethical, legal, contractual, intellectual property, or other legitimate restrictions, the reason should be stated.

Reviewers should assess whether the Data Availability Statement is appropriate for the nature of the study. Reviewers should not request confidential or personally identifiable data unless such access is necessary, ethically justified, and permitted by the journal.

F. Writing, Organisation and References – 10%

Reviewers should evaluate:

  • clarity of academic writing;

  • logical organisation and flow;

  • consistency of terminology;

  • presentation of tables and figures;

  • citation accuracy where reasonably assessable;

  • consistency between in-text citations and the reference list; and

  • compliance with the journal's referencing and formatting requirements.

5. Reviewer Recommendation

Following the assessment, reviewers should provide constructive comments and recommend one of the following:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision on a manuscript rests with the Editor or Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration the reviewer reports, scholarly quality, methodological validity, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal, and the authors' responses to revisions.

6. Constructive and Evidence-Based Review

Reviewers are expected to provide comments that are:

  • objective;

  • specific;

  • constructive;

  • evidence-based;

  • academically justified;

  • respectful; and

  • professionally written.

Reviewers should distinguish between:

Essential revisions – changes necessary to address significant scholarly, methodological, ethical, analytical, or interpretative weaknesses.

Optional recommendations – suggestions intended to improve clarity, presentation, or scholarly value without being essential to the validity of the study.

Personal criticism, discriminatory statements, hostile language, or unsupported allegations are not acceptable.

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for peer review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share manuscripts with unauthorised individuals;

  • disclose unpublished findings, arguments, methods, or data;

  • use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;

  • publicly discuss a manuscript before publication; or

  • upload confidential manuscript content to unauthorised third-party platforms or systems.

If additional specialist advice is necessary, the reviewer should first seek permission from the editorial office.

8. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect their independence or impartiality.

Potential conflicts may involve:

  • personal relationships;

  • professional relationships;

  • financial interests;

  • institutional relationships;

  • academic competition;

  • recent research collaborations; or

  • other circumstances that could reasonably affect impartial judgement.

A reviewer should decline the invitation when an objective and independent assessment cannot reasonably be provided.

Where uncertainty exists, the potential conflict should be disclosed to the Editor for consideration.

9. Research and Publication Ethics

Reviewers should confidentially notify the Editor if they identify potential concerns relating to:

  • plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap;

  • duplicate or redundant publication;

  • data fabrication or falsification;

  • inappropriate manipulation of data, figures, or images;

  • unethical research practices;

  • inappropriate authorship;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • citation manipulation; or

  • other potential breaches of publication ethics.

Reviewers should provide sufficient information to enable the editorial team to investigate the matter and should avoid making definitive allegations without adequate supporting evidence.

Jurnal Evolusi handles publication-ethics concerns with reference to recognised principles and relevant guidance provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

10. Citation Practices

Reviewers should recommend additional references only when they are academically relevant and genuinely necessary to strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite:

  • the reviewer's own publications without clear scholarly justification;

  • unnecessary articles from Jurnal Evolusi; or

  • particular authors or journals solely for the purpose of increasing citation counts.

Citation recommendations should be based on scholarly relevance.

11. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, confidentiality, and scholarly judgement contained in their review reports.

Confidential manuscripts or substantial unpublished manuscript content should not be uploaded to public or unauthorised generative artificial intelligence systems.

Where AI-assisted tools are permitted by the journal or applicable institutional requirements, reviewers must ensure compliance with confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, data protection, and research-integrity requirements.

Artificial intelligence must not replace the reviewer's independent academic judgement.

12. Review Timeline and Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • respond promptly to review invitations;

  • accept assignments only when they possess appropriate expertise;

  • complete reviews within the timeframe specified by the journal;

  • inform the editorial team promptly if additional time is required;

  • decline the invitation if they cannot provide a timely and competent review; and

  • respond appropriately when clarification is requested by the Editor.

The editorial team may use the OJS reminder function to issue automated or manual reminders to reviewers to support timely completion of the peer-review process.

13. Review of Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers may be invited to reassess revised manuscripts.

Where applicable, reviewers should determine whether:

  • previous comments have been adequately addressed;

  • methodological weaknesses have been corrected or appropriately acknowledged;

  • additional analyses are satisfactory;

  • theoretical or conceptual arguments have been strengthened;

  • conclusions remain supported by the evidence;

  • inappropriate claims have been corrected; and

  • the revised manuscript meets the scholarly requirements of Jurnal Evolusi.

Authors should provide a clear point-by-point response explaining how reviewer comments have been addressed.

14. Editorial Oversight and Decision-Making

The Editor and Editor-in-Chief are responsible for ensuring consistency, fairness, independence, and integrity throughout the peer-review process.

Editorial decisions may take into consideration:

  • reviewer reports;

  • methodological validity;

  • originality and novelty;

  • theoretical or conceptual contribution;

  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope;

  • research transparency;

  • ethical compliance;

  • quality of revisions; and

  • overall scholarly contribution.

The editorial team may seek additional expert review where necessary.

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript remains an editorial decision and is not determined solely by numerical reviewer scores.

15. Reviewer Performance and Reviewer Pool

Jurnal Evolusi recognises the important contribution of reviewers to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.

The editorial team may periodically evaluate reviewer performance based on:

  • quality and depth of the review;

  • ability to identify methodological issues;

  • quality of constructive feedback;

  • timeliness;

  • professionalism;

  • adherence to confidentiality requirements;

  • conflict-of-interest compliance; and

  • consistency with the journal's review standards.

The journal will periodically review and expand its reviewer pool to maintain appropriate disciplinary, theoretical, methodological, professional, institutional, and geographical expertise.

16. Reviewer Rubric

The standard Jurnal Evolusi reviewer assessment framework is:

Assessment Area Weight
Originality and Theoretical/Conceptual Contribution 20%
Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation 15%
Methodological Validity 25%
Results, Discussion and Conclusion 20%
Research Transparency, Ethics and Data Availability 10%
Writing, Organisation and References 10%
Total 100%

The numerical score supports editorial evaluation and should be accompanied by qualitative comments explaining the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, methodological concerns, contribution, and revisions required.

17. Peer-Review Workflow

The standard peer-review workflow of Jurnal Evolusi is:

Manuscript Submission → Initial Editorial Screening → Reviewer Selection → Double-Blind Peer Review → Reviewer Reports → Editorial Decision → Author Revision → Re-evaluation, where required → Final Editorial Decision → Copyediting → Production → Publication

The editorial team will manage this process through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform to support appropriate documentation and monitoring of the editorial process.

Publisher: Universiti Poly-Tech Malaysia (UPTM)
Journal: Jurnal Evolusi