Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process and Policy
Confidential expert evaluation
01Editorial Screening
Submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary evaluation for relevance to JKMK’s focus, manuscript completeness, originality, methodological suitability, research ethics, and compliance with Author Guidelines. Submissions with major deficiencies may be returned for technical correction or declined without external review.
02Reviewers and Assessment
Manuscripts selected for external peer review are ordinarily assessed by at least two subject or methodological experts, consistent with the journal’s published Peer Review Process. Reviewer reports are evaluated for relevance, rigor, constructive feedback, ethical awareness, and scientific justification. The handling editor may seek additional advice where opinions conflict or expertise is insufficient.
03Confidentiality and Impartiality
Manuscripts, unpublished data, review reports, and related editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers should not disclose or reuse unpublished content and should report possible conflicts before accepting an assignment. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript material to publicly accessible AI systems.
04Review Model and Anonymized Files
JKMK requires authors to upload an anonymous manuscript and a separate title page. Author-identifying details, including metadata and tracked changes, should be removed from the blinded file. The editorial office is responsible for implementing the journal’s approved peer-review confidentiality and identity-disclosure procedures consistently and communicating them accurately to authors and reviewers.
05Editor Decisions and Revision
Editorial decisions include acceptance, a request for revision, and rejection in accordance with the OJS 3 workflow and the journal’s current Author Guidelines. An author invited to revise should submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response. Reviewer recommendations inform—but do not determine—the final editorial decision.
06Editorial Independence
Scientific quality, ethics, relevance, and scholarly merit govern the outcome. Author identity, institutional affiliation, financial considerations, and payment of a publication fee must not determine the result. An independent editor should oversee submissions involving editorial conflicts.
SINTA 
Garuda 
DOAJ 
Dimensions 
Copernicus 
Google Scholar 