Peer Review Process

Ruang Berdampak: Jurnal Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (R-BEDA) applies an independent double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to support impartial and evidence-based evaluation.

The review process is designed to assess not only scholarly quality but also the journal’s distinctive emphasis on community participation, demonstrated impact, contextual relevance, and program sustainability.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

Every submission is initially examined by the editorial team. The screening covers:

  • Compliance with the journal’s Focus and Scope.
  • Use of the official article template and Author Guidelines.
  • Completeness of the manuscript and submission metadata.
  • Originality and similarity screening.
  • Availability of funding, conflict-of-interest, and ethical statements.
  • Evidence that the article reports meaningful community engagement rather than research or activity reporting without practical implementation.

The editor may return or reject a manuscript without external review when it is outside the journal’s scope, incomplete, inconsistent with the template, ethically problematic, or lacking a clear community engagement and impact component.

2. Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assessed for their relevance and potential contribution. Particular attention is given to the clarity of the partner’s needs, suitability of the intervention, participation of community partners, evidence of outcomes, and prospects for sustainability.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise. Reviewers are selected based on subject competence, experience, independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

R-BEDA uses a double-blind peer-review system. Authors must remove identifying information from the review version of the manuscript. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and may not use or distribute information obtained through the review process.

Reviewers assess the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and relevance of the community engagement program.
  • Clarity of the community or partner’s problems and identified needs.
  • Appropriateness and transparency of the implementation methods.
  • Meaningful participation of community partners.
  • Quality of evidence supporting program outputs and outcomes.
  • Demonstrated benefits or impact on the community.
  • Critical discussion of results, limitations, and lessons learned.
  • Feasibility of sustainability, follow-up, replication, or broader application.
  • Compliance with ethical principles and protection of participants.
  • Quality of writing, references, tables, figures, and supporting documentation.

5. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s compliance with journal policies, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept submission.
  • Revisions required.
  • Resubmit for review.
  • Decline submission.

Reviewer recommendations inform the decision, but the editor remains responsible for the final editorial decision.

6. Author Revision

Authors must respond to each reviewer and editor comment in a clear response document. Revised passages should be identified as requested by the editor. Authors should explain respectfully when a recommendation cannot be followed and provide an academic or practical justification.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent and substance of the revisions. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

7. Final Evaluation and Publication

After a manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly, ethical, and editorial requirements, the editor issues the final acceptance decision. The article then proceeds to copyediting, author proofreading, layout preparation, and online publication.

Substantive changes may not be made after final acceptance without editorial approval. Published articles remain subject to the journal’s correction, expression-of-concern, and retraction policies when significant errors or ethical issues are identified after publication.