Peer Review Process
Every manuscript submitted to the editor will be selected through an initial review process by the Editorial Board. Then, the article will be given to the peer reviewers and will continue to double blind peer-review process. After that, the article will be returned to the author for revision. It takes a very long time before publishing a quality article. Peer Reviewers will assess the substantial and technical aspects of the article. Peer Reviewers working for KILAT and contains researches in the field of The journal publishes original papers in fields that include Engineering, but are not limited to, the following scope: Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Information Engineering, Law and Economics related to studies in the field of Renewable Energy, Electricity, Telecommunications, Control Systems, Electronics, Architecture, Computer Systems, and Information Systems.
The article entered will be peer reviewed. They are vastly experience in managing prestigious journals and have a broad track record of publications in reputable international journals.
The suitability of manuscripts for publication in KILAT journal is judged by peer reviewers and the Editorial Board. All the review process are conducted in double blind review. Chief Editor handles all correspondence with the author and makes the final decision as to whether the paper is recommended for acceptance, rejection, or needs to be returned to the author for revision.
- When do submission of a manuscript, author should fulfill the requirements mentioned in Submission Preparation Checklist. Together with the manuscript, authors also should attach AuthorAgreement Declaration. Author also should follow the manuscript format determined by KILAT (Article Template).
- Once, the manuscript pass the administrative screening, Chief Editor and Associate Editor will evaluate the submitted papers on prequalification review for suitability of further review process.
- In this step, a manuscript could be rejected without review process, due to three general reasons: The topic of manuscript does not fit in the KILAT scope and may be better suited for publication elsewhere. The substance of the manuscripts does not meet KILAT standards; the data may be incomplete; the methodology used is not appropriate; lack of novelties and no advancement of the existing knowledge; or there are no consistency among objectives, research design/method, evidence, and conclusion. The manuscripts are not written following KILAT guidelines mentioned in Instruction to Authors.
- Once the manuscript meets the prequalification requirement, the manuscripts will be sent to qualified peer reviewers selected by Chief Editor and Associate Editors.
- The peer reviewers should examine the manuscript and return it with their recommendation, comment, and suggestion to the Chief Editor within 3 weeks since the review request is being accepted. In case, one of the peer reviewers recommend rejection, and in contrary, another reviewer recommend revision, the Chief Editor will ask a third reviewer or Board Editors to decide the acceptance or rejection of the paper.
- Papers needing revision will be returned to the authors, and the author must return the revised manuscript to the Chief Editor via e-journal of KILATwithin 3 weeks since notice/email from the Chief Editor in accepted. Manuscripts that exceed the revision deadline will be withdrawn. Authors may request for extension to Chief Editor before the revision expires.
- For manuscript in which a peer reviewer request a revision checking made by the authors, the revised manuscript will be sent to the peer reviewers upon request. In this step, the peer reviewers should re-examine the revised manuscript and return it with their recommendation, comment, and suggestion to the Chief Editor within 3 weeks since the review request is being accepted.
- Further, Chief Editor will send the revised manuscript to Associate Editors to check whether the manuscript is revised as suggested by peer reviewers.
- Associate Editors could give recommendation to Chief Editor that the manuscript should return to authors, should be accepted, or should be rejected within 2 weeks.
- In this step, manuscripts could be rejected if authors do not revise the manuscripts as suggested by reviewers and/or Editorial Board, or do not give proper response/rebuttal against the suggestions.
- If manuscript is rejected, the author will be notified by Chief Editor with a statement of reasons for rejection. The author may appeal to Chief Editor if he/she believes an unfair judgment has been made which enclose the authors’ reasons. Chief Editor will review and discuss the reasons with Associate Editor responsible for the manuscript, and later decide whether to accept or deny the appeal.
- After acceptance by Chief Editors, manuscript is forwarded to technical editor to be layout for editorial board meeting. Chief Editor would send an acceptance letter announcing the publication issue attached with manuscript reprint to authors.