Peer Review Process

Reviewers will review submitted articles that follow the journal guidelines and templates provided by the Jurnal Rekayasa Infrastruktur.
The review process in this journal uses the double-blind peer review method, which means that the identity of the reviewers and authors are kept confidential, and vice versa.
During the review process, articles will be reviewed by at least two reviewers to ensure the quality of the article.

Reviewing manuscripts written by fellow scientists is an honor. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Therefore, the Editorial Board of the Infrastructure Engineering Journal, authors, and readers appreciate your willingness to accept your responsibility and dedication. Therefore, the Infrastructure Engineering Journal needs reviewers who can provide insightful and useful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround time of approximately 8-10 weeks. Maintaining Infrastructure Engineering Journal as a high-quality scientific journal depends on reviewers having a high level of expertise and the ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in evaluating manuscripts.

If Jurnal Rekayasa Infrastruktur Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

1.  Reviewing manuscript critically, but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
2.  Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
3.  Providing all required information within established deadlines
4.  Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
5.  Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest concerning the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review
6.  Reporting possible research misconduct
7.  Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
8.  Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
9.  Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors
11. Not identifying themselves to authors
12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
15. Writing review report in English or Indonesia
16. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.

Here list of items that need to be reviewed:

1.  Novelty of the topic
2.  Originality
3.  Scientific reliability
4.  Valuable contribution to the science
5.  Adding new aspects to the existing field of study
6.  Ethical aspects
7.  Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
8.  References provided to substantiate the content
9.  Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
10. Scientific misconduct