Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process – Pupujian

All manuscripts submitted to Pupujian are subject to a rigorous double-blind peer-review process by at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant subject area. The review process assesses several factors, including relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language quality. Possible decisions include:

  • Acceptance

  • Acceptance with revisions

  • Rejection

If authors are invited to revise and resubmit, there is no guarantee of acceptance. Rejected manuscripts will not be re-reviewed. All accepted submissions must meet legal and ethical standards, including those concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Manuscripts cannot be under consideration by or published in other journals simultaneously.

1. Submission of Paper

  • Authors submit their manuscript via OJS Pupujian

  • The submission must be original and not previously published or under review elsewhere

  • Authors must participate in the peer-review process and respond appropriately

  • Manuscripts cannot be withdrawn after review has started unless formally rejected

  • Authors must ensure:

    • All listed authors contributed significantly to the work

    • All data presented is accurate and authentic

    • All sources are properly cited

    • Any conflicts of interest are disclosed

    • Errors discovered post-publication are reported to the editor

2. Editorial Office Assessment

  • Editorial staff checks compliance with Pupujian's Author Guidelines (structure, style, required sections)

  • Manuscripts are not evaluated for quality at this stage

  • Editors have full authority to accept or reject manuscripts

  • Editors are responsible for upholding academic quality and ethical standards

  • Editors must:

    • Be transparent with funding disclosures

    • Act in response to suspected misconduct

    • Avoid conflicts of interest

    • Publish corrections if needed

    • Ensure reviewer anonymity

    • Base decisions on relevance, originality, and clarity

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC)

  • The EiC reviews the manuscript to ensure it fits the journal's scope and meets quality standards

  • Manuscripts deemed unsuitable may be rejected without external review

4. EiC Assigns an Editor

  • The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a member of the Editorial Team to handle the peer-review process

5. Invitation to Reviewers

  • The assigned editor invites qualified reviewers

  • A minimum of two reviewers must accept to proceed

  • The review process is double-blind

6. Response to Invitations

  • Reviewers assess their fit, availability, and any conflicts of interest

  • If declining, reviewers are encouraged to suggest alternatives

  • Reviewers must:

    • Treat all materials as confidential

    • Provide objective, constructive feedback

    • Disclose overlaps or similarities with other works

    • Refrain from reviewing in case of any conflict of interest

7. Review is Conducted

  • Reviewers read the manuscript multiple times

  • If serious issues are found early, rejection may be recommended

  • Reviewers provide detailed, structured feedback and recommend:

    • Acceptance

    • Minor/Major Revision

    • Rejection

  • The review process is typically completed within one month

8. Editors Evaluate the Reviews

  • The handling editor evaluates all returned reviews

  • In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be invited

9. Decision is Communicated

  • The editor sends a decision email with reviewer feedback

  • Authors must revise the manuscript accordingly

  • Revised manuscripts may be returned to the same reviewers unless opted out

10. Final Steps

  • If accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage

  • Authors are notified

  • If rejected, detailed comments are provided to help authors improve for future submission