Artikel Penelitian Terbatas MAYNALS (APT-MAYNALS) is an innovative platform designed as a space for sharing ideas, thoughts, and research-based insights grounded in proven methodologies. Although the platform’s current focus has not yet reached the level of a formal scientific journal publication, APT-MAYNALS remains committed to providing a space that fosters critical thinking and in-depth analysis. Furthermore, the platform has a long-term vision to evolve into an officially indexed journal publishing institution, recognized by both local and international indexing bodies, thereby making a significant contribution to the global academic and research community.
Peer review should serve as an evaluative process that provides constructive recommendations to help authors improve the quality of manuscripts prior to publication. Additionally, the outcomes of this process should guide editors in determining editorial policies that align with scientific and ethical publishing standards. Peer reviewers are expected to offer relevant feedback based on their expertise, ensuring that published manuscripts meet high standards of quality and credibility.
1. Willingness
Peer reviewers are responsible for clearly informing the editor regarding their willingness to review a submitted manuscript. If a reviewer is unable or unwilling to undertake the task, they must promptly notify the editor so the evaluation process can be reassigned to another qualified reviewer. Transparent and timely communication is essential to maintaining the efficiency of the editorial process and ensuring the quality of the manuscript.
2. Confidentiality
All manuscripts under peer review are confidential documents and must be treated as such. Reviewers are prohibited from discussing or sharing manuscript contents with third parties without the explicit written consent of the author. This policy safeguards intellectual property rights, upholds the integrity of the review process, and ensures evaluations are conducted professionally and ethically.
3. Objectivity Standard
Reviewers must adhere to principles of objectivity, ensuring fair and unbiased manuscript assessments based on scholarly merit. Personal criticisms of the author are unacceptable; feedback should focus on the manuscript’s content and be delivered in a professional manner, accompanied by clear and constructive suggestions to help authors enhance their work.
4. Source Clarity
Reviewers are encouraged to inform authors of relevant research, literature reviews, or case studies, particularly if substantial similarities or overlaps with the reviewed manuscript exist. Such references should be provided without direct quotations but should aid authors in identifying literature that could enrich their analysis. This practice contributes to the manuscript’s academic rigor and validity.
5. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using unpublished manuscript materials or information for personal gain without the author’s written permission. Any potential conflicts of interest—whether due to competitive, collaborative, or institutional relationships with the author—must be disclosed. In such cases, the reviewer must recuse themselves to preserve the review process’s integrity.
1. Publishing Decision
The final decision to publish a manuscript rests with the editor, guided by the editorial board’s policies and in compliance with legal and ethical standards. Manuscripts must be free of defamatory content, copyright violations, plagiarism, or other legal disputes. Editors may consult with peers or reviewers to ensure objective decision-making, free from personal bias.
2. Justice
Manuscripts must be evaluated based on scholarly quality, originality, and contribution to the field, without regard to non-academic factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political ideology. The process must be fair, transparent, and objective, reflecting a commitment to inclusivity and academic integrity.