J
Jurnal Teknika dan Informatika (JTI) Abnus Publisher
Journal Policies

Double Blind
Peer Review

Jurnal Teknika dan Informatika (JTI) employs a rigorous double blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic integrity, objectivity, and scholarly excellence.

Full Anonymity Rigorous Process COPE Compliant Editorial Independence
Double Blind Protocol
Author Identity hidden
Anonymous
Reviewer Identity hidden
01Submission
02Screening
03Review
04Decision
05Publication
9
Review Steps
5×
Min. Reviewers
100%
Anonymity
COPE
Ethics Standard
01
Overview

What Is Double Blind Review

In a double blind peer review process, both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous to each other throughout the entire evaluation.

This approach eliminates potential biases that may arise from the identity, affiliation, or reputation of the author, ensuring that each manuscript is evaluated purely on its academic merit, originality, and scholarly contribution.

JTI is committed to upholding this standard as a cornerstone of fair and credible academic publishing.

Core Principle
Merit-Based
Evaluation
Every manuscript is judged solely on academic quality — not the author's name, institution, or reputation.
No Bias Fair Process Objective
02
Step by Step

The Review Process

01

Submission of Paper

Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. Submissions must follow the journal's Author Guidelines and formatting requirements.

02

Initial Editorial Assessment

Editorial Desk

The editorial office evaluates alignment with the journal's focus, scope, structure, and formatting. The manuscript may also be screened for plagiarism using similarity detection software.

03

Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief

Chief Review

The Editor-in-Chief assesses originality, academic contribution, clarity, and relevance. Manuscripts that do not meet minimum standards may be rejected without further review.

04

Reviewer Assignment

Expert Selection

The handling editor assigns the manuscript to at least two qualified reviewers. A double-blind system is applied — both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure impartiality.

05

Reviewer Response to Invitation

Confirmation

Invited reviewers evaluate the request based on expertise, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest. If declined, alternative reviewers are invited.

06

Peer Review Process

Anonymous Review

Reviewers assess theoretical contribution, methodology, data analysis, originality, and clarity. They recommend one of: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

07

Editorial Decision

Deliberation

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor weigh all reviewer comments. If opinions differ significantly, an additional reviewer may be consulted for a balanced evaluation.

08

Communication of Decision

Notification

The editorial office notifies the corresponding author with anonymized reviewer comments. Authors are expected to respond to each comment and revise accordingly.

09

Final Processing and Publication

Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copy-editing and layout formatting. Once finalized, the article is published online and made available to readers in full-text format.

03
For Reviewers

Reviewer Responsibilities

01

Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share, discuss, or disclose their content with any third party.

Strictly Enforced
02

Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Feedback should be clear, constructive, and well-reasoned.

Professional Standard
03

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must immediately notify the editor if they recognize the author's identity or have any conflict of interest, and must decline to review in such cases.

Mandatory Disclosure
04

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly and complete evaluations within the agreed timeframe, notifying the editor if unable to do so.

Time-Bound Commitment
04
For Authors

Author Guidelines for Blind Submission

To maintain the integrity of the double blind review process, authors must ensure that their submitted manuscripts do not contain any identifying information.

✓
Remove author names and affiliations
The title page should not include any author names, institutional affiliations, or contact information in the manuscript file submitted for review.
✓
Anonymize self-citations
References to the authors' own previous work should be written in the third person or replaced with "[Author]" to avoid revealing identity.
✓
Remove acknowledgements
Any acknowledgements, funding statements, or personal thanks that may identify the author must be omitted from the review copy and submitted separately.
✓
Check file metadata
Authors must ensure that document metadata (such as the Author field in file properties) does not contain identifying information before submission.
✓
Avoid identifying project names
Grant numbers, project names, or institutional identifiers that may reveal the author's identity should be withheld or anonymized in the review version.
05
Further Info

Additional Information

✓

This structured and transparent peer review process ensures that all articles published in JTI meet high academic and ethical standards.

Article Processing

Some journals apply APCs. Check individual journal pages for details on applicable charges.

Preprints

Preprint submissions are accepted. Disclose any preprint posting during the submission process.

ORCID

Authors are encouraged to register for and include their ORCID identifier in their submission profile.

Article Types

We accept original research articles and review articles across all relevant disciplines.