Publication Policy

Peer Review Process

Nusantara Journal of Basic and Applied Science uses double-blind peer review. Author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another throughout review. Editorial staff remove identifying information where practicable, and authors must submit an anonymised manuscript.

1. Initial and desk review

After an administrative check for completeness, anonymisation, authorship information, required declarations, and file integrity, an editor conducts a desk review. The editor assesses fit with the journal's focus and scope, originality, scholarly or practical contribution, methodological soundness, research ethics, reporting quality, and compliance with journal policies. Similarity screening may form part of this assessment. Manuscripts that are out of scope, insufficiently developed, methodologically or ethically deficient, or non-compliant may be declined without external review. The journal aims to complete the initial and desk review within 7 working days, although complex ethics or integrity checks may take longer.

2. Handling editor and reviewer selection

A suitable editor is assigned according to subject and methodological expertise. That editor selects reviewers with relevant expertise, an appropriate publication or professional record, and sufficient independence. Reviewer suggestions supplied by authors may be considered but are not binding. Reviewers must not be from the same institution as any author and should not have recent close collaboration, supervision, personal relationships, financial interests, direct competition, or other circumstances that could reasonably affect impartiality. The editor may consult publication histories, institutional profiles, ORCID records, and other reliable sources when checking expertise and independence.

3. Conflicts of interest and confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment. A conflicted editor must recuse themselves, and a conflicted reviewer will not be appointed or will be replaced. Review materials are confidential and may not be shared or used for personal advantage. The use of generative AI to upload, analyse, or draft a report from a confidential manuscript is prohibited unless the journal has expressly authorised a secure tool and informed the authors.

4. Independent external review

Each research, review, policy, practice, methods, or case-study manuscript sent for peer review is normally evaluated by a minimum of two independent external reviewers. Invited commentaries or other editorial content may be assessed editorially; the review route will be identified transparently when published. Reviewers are asked to return a structured, evidence-based report within 21 calendar days. If reports materially conflict or do not provide an adequate basis for a decision, the handling editor may seek clarification or appoint an additional independent reviewer.

5. Editorial decision and revision

The handling editor evaluates the reports and recommends one of the following outcomes: accept; minor revision; major revision; or reject. Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than determinative. Authors normally receive 14 calendar days for a minor revision and 30 calendar days for a major revision. Extensions may be granted when requested before the deadline. A revised manuscript must include a point-by-point response explaining how every comment was addressed or why a suggested change was not made.

6. Further review rounds and final decision

Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor. Major revisions are normally returned to the original reviewers when they are available and may be sent to new reviewers when necessary. Reviewers are normally given 14–21 calendar days for a subsequent round. The process may continue for more than one round until the concerns are resolved or the manuscript is rejected. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision, based on the reports, the authors' responses, the handling editor's recommendation, research integrity, and the journal's scope and standards. Acceptance is never guaranteed by revision or by favourable reviewer recommendations.

7. Manuscripts involving editors

Editors, editorial-board members, and their close collaborators may submit manuscripts, but they receive no preferential treatment and must not participate in, access, or influence the review or decision. The Editor-in-Chief assigns an independent editor with no relevant conflict. If the Editor-in-Chief is an author or is conflicted, an independent senior editor assumes full responsibility for reviewer selection and the final decision. The published article will disclose the independent handling arrangement where relevant.

Indicative peer-review timeframes are service targets rather than guarantees. Delays may occur when specialist reviewers are difficult to secure, additional integrity checks are required, or authors request an extension.

Special Issue Policy

This policy applies whenever the journal publishes a special issue or any collection curated by guest editors. The journal does not currently operate a special issue programme. Introducing one does not alter the journal's scope, quality threshold, ethics, peer review, open-access, licensing, correction, or retraction policies.

Responsibility and approval

The Editor-in-Chief remains accountable for the entire journal and every special issue. A proposal must define the scholarly rationale, relationship to the journal's scope, proposed title, timetable, article types, anticipated contributors, and proposed guest editor(s). The Editor-in-Chief and at least one non-conflicted editorial-board member review and approve the proposal before any call or invitation is issued. They may amend, suspend, or cancel a special issue when its scope, integrity, progress, or editorial independence is inadequate.

Guest-editor credentials and conflicts

Before appointment, the journal verifies and documents each guest editor's identity, current affiliation and country, subject and methodological expertise, publication record, ORCID or institutional profile where available, editorial experience, contact details, conflicts of interest, and written acceptance of the journal's policies. The appointment, agreed responsibilities, term, verification evidence, and declarations are retained in a confidential register. A person whose expertise, identity, independence, or conduct cannot be verified is not appointed.

Board oversight and editorial authority

The Editor-in-Chief designates a non-conflicted board member to monitor the guest editors, timetable, reviewer selection, decisions, conflicts, issue composition, and compliance record in OJS. Guest editors may assess scope, suggest reviewers, coordinate review, and recommend decisions, but they may not guarantee acceptance or make the final publication decision. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorised non-conflicted permanent editor approves every decision and retains final authority. Commercial, institutional, or sponsor interests have no role in manuscript selection or decisions.

Peer review and independence

Every scholarly article follows the same administrative checks, iThenticate assessment, double-blind external peer review, ethics requirements, and decision standards as a regular submission. At least two independent external reviewers assess each article. Invitations, reports, conflicts, recommendations, revisions, and decisions are recorded in OJS. Guest editors may not handle their own manuscripts, work by close collaborators, work from their institution where independence could reasonably be questioned, or any manuscript affected by another conflict; an Independent Senior Editor manages such submissions without guest-editor access or influence.

Guest-editor authorship limit

Articles with one or more guest editors as authors must undergo the independent process described above and may constitute no more than 25% of the special issue's total scholarly articles. Before publication, the Managing Editor records the numerator, denominator, percentage, independent handler, and reviewer checks in the confidential special-issue register; the Editor-in-Chief verifies compliance. Accepted guest-editor articles are deferred or removed from the planned collection if publication would exceed the limit. Article classifications or issue composition must not be manipulated to avoid the calculation.

Transparency and labelling

The public call and special-issue landing page identify the theme, scope, timetable, guest editors and affiliations, submission route, peer-review model, and applicable charges or confirmation that none apply. The issue and every included article are clearly labelled as special-issue content in their visible page and metadata. Editorials identify the guest editors and oversight arrangements. Invitations to submit, participation in the proposal, or association with a sponsor do not guarantee acceptance. Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions remain under the authority of the Editor-in-Chief and the journal's regular ethics policy.

Reviewer Guidelines

Before accepting an invitation

Accept only when the manuscript falls within your subject or methodological competence and you can provide a report within 21 calendar days.
Declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict, including recent collaboration, supervision, shared institutional affiliation, financial or personal interests, direct competition, or prior knowledge that could compromise double-blind review. When uncertain, consult the editor before accepting.
Decline the invitation if you cannot act independently. Do not transfer the manuscript or invite another person to assist without prior written editorial permission.

Confidentiality and responsible tool use

Treat the manuscript, data, supplementary files, correspondence, and review as confidential. Do not contact the authors, disclose the review, or use unpublished material for personal advantage.
Do not upload the manuscript or any part of it to a public or third-party generative-AI service and do not use generative AI to produce the assessment. A reviewer remains personally responsible for an original, expert evaluation.

What the review must assess

Contribution and scope: relevance to the journal, originality, significance, and engagement with appropriate literature.
Methods and analysis: suitability of design, sampling, materials, instruments, statistics or qualitative analysis, reproducibility, limitations, and whether conclusions are supported by evidence.
Ethics: approval or exemption, consent, treatment of vulnerable participants or communities, animal welfare where applicable, confidentiality, and any indication of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, image or data manipulation, duplicate publication, undisclosed AI use, or citation manipulation.
Data and transparency: consistency between the manuscript and Data Availability Statement; adequacy of data, code, protocols, reporting guidelines, and supplementary materials; and justified restrictions on access.
Presentation: clarity, logical organisation, accessibility of tables and figures, accurate attribution, and completeness of references. Reviewers must not demand citations to their own work or irrelevant citations.

Writing the report and recommendation

Begin with a concise assessment of the contribution. Separate essential concerns from optional suggestions; number comments; identify locations precisely; explain the reason for each requested change; and remain objective, specific, evidence-based, constructive, and respectful. Do not make personal remarks or attempt to identify the authors. Send suspected misconduct or confidential concerns only in the editor-only field, with evidence where possible.

Select one recommendation: accept; minor revision; major revision; or reject. The recommendation must follow from the report, but it is advisory: the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision. Submit the report through OJS. Notify the editor promptly if circumstances prevent timely completion or if a conflict is discovered after acceptance.

Editor Standard Operating Procedure

Submission-stage administrative check: the Managing Editor verifies files, metadata, anonymisation, author and affiliation details, authorship approval, ORCID where supplied, declarations, article type, word limit, and required ethics and data statements. Incomplete submissions are returned before scholarly assessment.
Integrity screening: the authorised editor conducts iThenticate screening, manually assesses the report, documents the outcome in the private OJS record, and escalates credible ethics concerns under the publication-ethics procedure.
Desk review: within the journal's target of 7 working days, an editor assesses scope, contribution, methods, reporting, ethics, and minimum scholarly quality. The submission is either declined with reasons, returned for pre-review correction, or advanced to external review.
Assign handling editor: the Editor-in-Chief selects an editor with relevant expertise and no conflict. Recusals and replacements are recorded. Internal or special-issue submissions follow the independent-handling rules.
Select reviewers: the handling editor identifies at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate subject or methodological expertise. Independence, affiliation, recent collaboration, supervision, personal, financial, and competitive relationships are checked and recorded before invitation.
Manage review: invitations and reports are managed through the OJS Review stage. Reviewers normally receive 21 calendar days. The editor sends proportionate reminders and appoints replacements when necessary. Author-suggested reviewers are not automatically used.
Evaluate reports: the handling editor assesses the quality and consistency of the reports rather than counting recommendations. A third independent reviewer or specialist advice is obtained when reports conflict materially, expertise is missing, or integrity concerns require it.
First decision: the handling editor recommends accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject and drafts a reasoned decision that distinguishes mandatory revisions from advice. The Editor-in-Chief or authorised non-conflicted editor approves the decision in OJS.
Revision: authors submit a revised manuscript and point-by-point response within 14 days for minor revision or 30 days for major revision, unless an extension is approved. The editor checks every response. Major revisions normally return to reviewers; minor revisions may be assessed editorially.
Further rounds and final decision: subsequent reports and responses are retained in OJS. The Editor-in-Chief makes and records the final decision based on evidence, reviewer reports, author responses, integrity, scope, and journal standards. Reviewer recommendations do not bind the decision.
Post-acceptance: acceptance is recorded only after required files, declarations, permissions, data statements, and authorship details are complete. The submission moves through OJS Copyediting and Production. Proof approval, licence, article metadata, DOI information, dates, funding, conflicts, and links to data or corrections are checked before publication.
Audit and confidentiality: assignments, conflicts, reviewer checks, communications, reports, decisions, and reasons are retained in the confidential OJS history. Access is role-based. Editors monitor timeliness, reviewer quality, endogeny, and adherence to declared policy without altering scholarly decisions for commercial reasons.

iThenticate Similarity Screening

Every submission is screened using iThenticate by the Managing Editor or an authorised editorial staff member after the administrative check and before external peer review. A substantially revised manuscript may be screened again before a final decision. The screening record—including the date, person responsible, report or reference number, relevant matches, editorial assessment, and action taken—is retained in the journal's confidential editorial records.

The responsible editor manually examines the Similarity Report and, where necessary, the underlying sources. The assessment considers the location, extent, pattern, source, attribution, and scholarly context of each match, including quotation and citation accuracy, unattributed paraphrasing, duplicate or translated publication, text recycling or self-overlap, standard methodological wording, reference-list matches, citation manipulation, and possible duplication of tables, figures, or data.

The journal applies no automatic numerical threshold. An overall Similarity Score or any single percentage does not by itself determine acceptance or rejection. Legitimate quotations, references, standard terminology, and properly attributed reuse are evaluated differently from misleading or unattributed overlap. Depending on the nature and severity of a concern, the editor may clear the manuscript, request clarification or correction, require revision and rescreening, reject the submission, or initiate an investigation under the journal's publication-ethics procedures. Suspected serious misconduct may be handled in accordance with relevant COPE guidance.

Copyright and Licensing

Copyright in each article remains with the author(s). Authors grant Nusantara Journal of Basic and Applied Science a non-exclusive right of first publication and the right to identify the journal as the original publisher.

Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This permits sharing and adaptation for any purpose, including commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given, the original publication is acknowledged, a link to the licence is provided, and any changes are indicated.

Authors may deposit and distribute the submitted, accepted, and published versions without embargo, with appropriate citation of the Version of Record. Third-party material is covered by CC BY 4.0 only when expressly indicated.

Language Support

Manuscripts must be written in clear, grammatically sound British English. Required multilingual abstracts and keywords must follow the Author Guidelines. Authors who are not confident in the manuscript language are encouraged to seek language editing before submission.