Peer Review Process

Multica Science and Technology (MST) is a double blind and peer reviewed international journal. Every paper submitted to MST for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility of the papers. The peer review at MST proceeds in 9 steps with description as follows.

1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). But in order to facilitate authors, MST temporarily also accepts paper submissions by email to multica@universitasmulia.ac.id

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The submitted paper is first assessed by the MST editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable with MST’s focus and scope. The paper’s composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper which pass this step will be checked by Turnitin to identify any plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further

4. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals who he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers (also known as referees) based on expertise, closeness of research interest, and no conflict of interest consideration. The peer review process at MST involves a community of experts in a narrowly defined field of science and technology, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. The impartiality is also maintained by the double blind peer review employed in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the author’s identity, conversely the author does not know the reviewer’s identity. The paper is sent to two reviewers anonymously.

5. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer for suggestion of alternative reviewers, when he or she declines to review.

6. Review is Conducted

The reviewer allocates time to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept, or reject it, or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The EIC and handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.

8. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewers' comment are sent anonymously to corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.

9. Final Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers’ comments and instructions.

After revision has been made, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor supplemented with a cover page containing a check list that declares points of correction and revision that have been made.

If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.