Editor & Reviewer Guide
Lembaga Komunitas Informasi Teknologi Aceh (KITA) relies on the expertise and integrity of its Editorial Boards and Peer Reviewers across all 11 scholarly journals. This guide outlines our publisher-level operational standards for editorial decision-making and double-blind peer review in compliance with COPE Core Practices and ARJUNA/SINTA accreditation guidelines.
- Scope & Template Verification: Section Editors and Editors-in-Chief evaluate new submissions within 3–7 days for alignment with the journal's scope, IMRaD structure, and formatting guidelines.
- Similarity & Transparency Check: Editors verify that the manuscript passes similarity screening (maximum 20%) and includes required transparency statements (Author Contributions/CRediT, Funding, Conflict of Interest, and AI Declaration).
- Anonymization for Review: Before assigning reviewers, editors ensure that author identities and institutional metadata are removed from the review file to preserve strict Double-Blind Peer Review.
- Independent Evaluation: Each manuscript must be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise and no institutional conflict of interest with the authors.
- Editorial Decisions: Based on reviewer reports, editors issue one of four decisions via OJS: Accept Submission, Revisions Required (Minor), Resubmit for Review (Major), or Decline Submission.
- Metadata & DOI Production: Upon acceptance, editors verify citation formatting (APA 7th Edition), ORCID completeness, and Crossref DOI assignment (
10.35870) prior to publication.
- Originality & Contribution: Assess whether the study offers novel theoretical, empirical, or practical insights to its field.
- Methodological Rigor: Evaluate the validity of the research design, data collection, statistical/qualitative analysis, and reproducibility.
- Clarity & Literature Currency: Check whether arguments are logically structured, conclusions are supported by data, and references reflect current primary literature.
- Constructive Feedback: Reviews must be objective, courteous, and provide actionable recommendations to help authors improve their work.
- Strict Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are privileged documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, cite, or use unpublished data for personal advantage.
- Prohibition of Generative AI in Peer Review: In accordance with COPE and publisher privacy policies, editors and reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading unpublished manuscripts or any portion thereof into generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) to generate review reports, as this violates author confidentiality and copyright.
- Timely Response: Reviewers are requested to respond to review invitations promptly and submit their evaluations within the timeframe specified in OJS.