Peer Review Process

All the manuscript submitted to Intermestic Journal of International Studies (INTERMESTIC) will have an initial review by the editor for suitability to the journal coverage. This consideration is made based on the aims and scopes, writing guidelines, the article design, and the article originality. The article passed in this stage will then be screened with a plagiarism checker tool prior to the review process by the expert reviewers.

This journal uses a double-blind review method, which means both author(s) and reviewers are unable to see each other identities. Typically, an article will be sent to a minimum of two reviewers, and the feedback will be delivered to the author anonymously. Expert reviewers solely give a recommendation but the editor whose the right to make a final decision of acceptance or rejection of the article.

Once the review process is done, the editor will notify the author with one of the following decision.

  1. Accepted submission. This decision implies the article needs no more revisions and is ready for the copyediting process. There are no more corrections unless from the copyeditor to improve the clarity and readability of the article.
  2. Resubmit for review. The editor made this decision may because the article has eminence in content, but the manuscript is not written based on the style of the journal. It might be also the article prone to have plagiarism issue because of inappropriate referencing.
  3. Revision required. A manuscript subject to this decision means the article needs improvements according to the reviewers’ recommendations and the editor’s evaluation. For minor revisions, the author will be given ten days to have their article revised, and maximally three weeks for major revisions article after the decision is made.

Decline submission. Generally the manuscript is declined by the editor because (1) it is not fit to the aim and scope of the journal, (2) the article does not offer a novelty, originality or significance to the field that being discussed (3) the article has plenty of flaws whether in research and article design, methodology, and analysis, (4) subject to plagiarism issues.