Peer Review Process

Jurnal Konstruksi dan Infrastruktur (JKI) applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

All manuscripts submitted to JKI undergo the following editorial and peer-review stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team to determine whether it:

  • falls within the aims and scope of JKI;
  • follows the journal's author guidelines and manuscript format;
  • meets basic standards of academic quality and research integrity; and
  • contains sufficient originality and scholarly contribution.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, do not comply with essential submission requirements, or do not meet minimum scholarly standards may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

2. Similarity and Integrity Screening

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are checked using similarity-detection software and may also be examined for other potential research-integrity concerns.

A similarity score is not used as the sole basis for determining plagiarism. Similarity reports are evaluated by the editorial team together with the context, source of similarity, citation practices, and nature of the overlapping material.

Where necessary, authors may be requested to revise the manuscript before it proceeds to external peer review.

3. Assignment of Independent Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection is based on academic expertise, research experience, independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should not have personal, professional, financial, institutional, collaborative, or other relationships that could reasonably affect the impartiality of their assessment.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

JKI uses a double-blind peer-review system.

The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate, among other aspects:

  • originality and significance of the study;
  • relevance to the journal's scope;
  • adequacy of the research methodology;
  • accuracy and clarity of analysis;
  • validity of results and conclusions;
  • quality of academic writing and presentation;
  • adequacy and relevance of references; and
  • compliance with research and publication ethics.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision; or
  • Reject.

Reviewer comments are communicated anonymously to the authors.

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript together with an appropriate response or explanation.

6. Revision and Further Review

Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the handling editor.

Depending on the extent of the revisions and the reviewers' recommendations, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers for further assessment.

Multiple rounds of revision may be required when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets JKI's scholarly and ethical standards.

7. Editorial Decision

Peer-review recommendations are advisory and form an important basis for the editorial decision.

The final decision to accept, request revision, or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor acting without a conflict of interest.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, relevance, originality, methodological soundness, peer-review reports, and compliance with the journal's ethical and editorial policies.

8. Conflict of Interest in Editorial Handling

Editors must not handle manuscripts in which they have a personal, professional, financial, collaborative, institutional, or other relevant conflict of interest.

Where an editor has a conflict of interest, responsibility for the manuscript will be transferred to another qualified editor who is independent of the authors and the research.

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, reviewers, or persons closely associated with the journal are subject to the same editorial standards and independent peer-review requirements as all other manuscripts.

9. Peer Review for Special Issues

Jurnal Konstruksi dan Infrastruktur (JKI) may publish special issues on specific themes that are relevant to the aims and scope of the journal.

All special issues are managed by the regular Editorial Team of JKI. JKI does not appoint Guest Editors for the special issues currently published by the journal.

The Editor-in-Chief remains fully responsible for the scholarly quality, editorial integrity, and final publication decisions of all special issues.

Manuscripts submitted to a special issue are subject to the same editorial standards as manuscripts submitted to regular issues. Each manuscript must:

  • fall within the aims and scope of JKI;
  • pass initial editorial screening;
  • undergo similarity and research-integrity checks;
  • undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers;
  • complete any required revisions; and
  • receive a final editorial decision from the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor without a conflict of interest.

Participation in a conference, seminar, workshop, call for papers, or other academic event does not guarantee publication in JKI.

Papers originating from conferences or academic events are treated as regular journal submissions and must successfully complete JKI's editorial and peer-review process before publication.

Manuscripts authored by an editor, editorial board member, or reviewer of JKI are handled independently by an editor who has no conflict of interest and are subject to the same peer-review standards as other manuscripts.

JKI is committed to maintaining editorial independence and ensuring that special issues do not compromise the journal's peer-review, publication ethics, or academic quality standards.

10. Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished materials obtained through the peer-review process are treated as confidential.

Reviewers and editors must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers and editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, unpublished research materials, reviewer reports, or confidential editorial information to external generative AI or AI-assisted systems where such use may compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or data protection. Generative AI or AI-assisted tools must not be used to generate peer-review reports, editorial assessments, recommendations, or publication decisions.

11. Peer-Review Integrity

JKI is committed to maintaining a fair, independent, confidential, and academically rigorous peer-review process.

Any suspected manipulation of peer review, fabricated reviewer identities, inappropriate reviewer suggestions, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other breaches of peer-review integrity will be investigated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy.

12. Review Deadlines and Further Assessment

Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within 21 calendar days after accepting an invitation. The assigned deadline is recorded in OJS. Reviewers who require additional time must contact the handling editor before the deadline.

The editor may send reminders, approve a reasonable extension, or appoint a replacement reviewer when a report cannot be completed on time.

The deadline for an author revision is stated in the editorial decision and depends on the extent of the required changes. Authors may request an extension with an explanation.

Where reviewer recommendations conflict substantially or important methodological concerns remain unresolved, the editor may seek clarification or obtain an additional independent review. Decisions are based on the evidence and reasoning in the reports rather than a simple vote.

Processing times vary with reviewer availability, revisions, and research-integrity checks. JKI does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period.