Peer Review
The Peer Review Policy of Lembaga Mitra Solusi Teknologi Informasi (L-MSTI) forms the cornerstone of our academic quality assurance framework. To ensure objective, impartial, and rigorous evaluation across our 15 multidisciplinary journals, we enforce a strict Double-Blind Peer Review workflow. All manuscripts are critically evaluated by independent subject matter experts to uphold scientific validity, methodological soundness, and international publishing ethics aligned with COPE guidelines.
Review Quality
Peer Review: Ensuring Academic Excellence
Peer review is vital for validating scientific research, refining experimental methodologies, and promoting scholarly communication. L-MSTI maintains a robust evaluation system to support high-impact dissemination.
"Peer review is not merely about finding flaws—it is a collaborative scholarly process aimed at elevating research quality, verifying methodological rigor, and ensuring public trust in scientific knowledge."
Dual Pillars of Our Evaluation System
Double-Blind Peer Review
Author identities and institutional affiliations are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors throughout the process. This guarantees unbiased evaluation based strictly on technical merit.
Multiple Independent Experts
Every manuscript is assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers possessing domain knowledge in the manuscript's specific research area, ensuring well-rounded analytical perspectives.
Standard Review Process Timeline
L-MSTI manages review cycles efficiently through Open Journal Systems (OJS 3.4):
Initial Screening
3–5 Days
Desk check for scope, template compliance, and plagiarism screening (<20%).
Peer Review
14–21 Days
Independent evaluations by assigned peer reviewers.
Author Revisions
7–14 Days
Authors address reviewer comments and submit revised draft.
Final Decision
5–7 Days
Editor-in-Chief issues final disposition letter.
Review Evaluation Criteria
Peer reviewers evaluate submissions based on two fundamental pillars:
Scientific & Technical Quality
- Originality and novelty of research contributions.
- Methodological soundness and experimental design validity.
- Accuracy of data analysis, mathematical models, or code.
- Logical connection between findings and conclusions.
Presentation & Standards
- Clarity of academic writing and structural organization.
- High-resolution figures, clear tables, and descriptive captions.
- Completeness of literature citations with active Crossref DOIs.
- Inclusion of 4 Mandatory Declarations and template adherence.
Possible Editorial Decisions
Accept Submission
The manuscript meets all scientific standards and is accepted without further technical modifications.
Minor Revisions Required
The paper is scientifically sound but requires minor text clarifications, formatting tweaks, or reference additions.
Major Revisions Required
The paper shows promise but requires significant methodological adjustments, supplementary experiments, or structural rewriting.
Decline Submission
The paper falls outside the journal scope, contains fundamental technical flaws, or fails plagiarism thresholds (>20%).
Guidelines for Authors & Reviewers
For Authors
- Expect constructive, objective feedback aimed at strengthening your manuscript.
- Provide a point-by-point response table when submitting revised drafts.
- Ensure all author details remain anonymized in initial submission files.
- Address all reviewer queries within the assigned deadline (7–14 days).
For Reviewers
- Declare any potential financial or personal conflicts of interest immediately.
- Maintain strict confidentiality regarding assigned manuscript drafts and data.
- Provide balanced, polite, and evidence-based analytical feedback.
- Complete evaluations within the agreed review window (14–21 days).
Ethical Standards in Peer Review
Our peer review workflows comply strictly with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) standards:
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are privileged documents. Reviewers must not share, cite, or utilize unreleased findings prior to publication.
- Objectivity & Respect: Reviews must be conducted impartially. Personal criticism of authors is strictly unacceptable.
- Conflict Recusal: Reviewers who have collaborated with authors, belong to the same institution, or possess financial interests must decline the review request.
- AI Code of Conduct: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading confidential manuscript files into public generative AI tools.
Join Our Peer Review Panel
L-MSTI welcomes qualified PhD scholars, researchers, and senior engineers to join our international reviewer pool across our 15 journals.
Peer Review Helpdesk
| Peer Review Office | L-MSTI Central Editorial Board |
|---|---|
| Official Email | journal@msti-indonesia.com |
| Editorial Phone / WhatsApp | +62 85277777449 |
| Office Address | Jl. T Nyak Arief No. 68, Banda Aceh, Aceh Province, 23121, Indonesia |