Abdiku Negeri: Jurnal Pengabdian untuk Pendidikan applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of all manuscripts considered for publication.

The peer-review process is designed to provide an objective and constructive assessment of manuscripts while maintaining the confidentiality and independence of authors and reviewers.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted through the journal's Open Journal System (OJS) undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent to reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor evaluates the manuscript based on:

• conformity with the journal's focus and scope;
• originality and relevance of the community service activity;
• compliance with the Author Guidelines and manuscript template;
• clarity of the problem, objectives, and contribution;
• appropriateness of the methodology;
• completeness of the manuscript;
• basic academic and ethical standards; and
• potential plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• academic and professional expertise;
• relevance of expertise to the manuscript topic;
• publication and scholarly experience;
• absence of conflicts of interest; and
• availability to complete the review within the required timeframe.

The Editor may invite reviewers from different institutions to ensure an independent and balanced assessment.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal applies a double-blind peer-review system.

Under this system:

• the identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewers;
• the identity of the reviewers is concealed from the authors;
• reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors; and
• authors must not attempt to identify the reviewers.

Authors are therefore required to remove identifying information from the manuscript where necessary to maintain the integrity of the double-blind review process.

4. Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript is normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.

Additional reviewers may be appointed when:

• reviewer recommendations substantially differ;
• the manuscript requires specialized expertise;
• ethical or methodological concerns arise; or
• the Editor considers an additional assessment necessary to reach a fair decision.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts comprehensively, particularly the following aspects:

A. Relevance and Significance

• Is the community problem clearly identified?
• Is the problem relevant to education and community development?
• Is the intervention justified by the identified needs?
• Does the activity provide meaningful practical or educational contributions?

B. Originality and Innovation

• Does the program demonstrate originality?
• Is there an innovative element in the intervention?
• Does the article provide a meaningful contribution beyond merely describing a routine activity?

C. Methodological Quality

Reviewers assess whether:

• the target community is clearly described;
• the number and characteristics of participants are reported;
• the location and implementation period are clear;
• the intervention or program design is appropriate;
• implementation stages are adequately explained;
• data collection procedures are appropriate;
• evaluation methods are clearly described; and
• the methodology is sufficiently transparent to allow replication.

D. Results and Impact

Reviewers assess whether the manuscript provides credible evidence of:

• changes in knowledge;
• improvement in skills;
• changes in attitudes or practices;
• institutional improvement;
• community empowerment;
• educational outcomes; or
• other measurable or clearly documented impacts.

The manuscript should distinguish between program activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts whenever appropriate.

E. Discussion

Reviewers evaluate whether the discussion:

• interprets rather than merely describes the results;
• connects findings with relevant literature;
• explains the significance of the outcomes;
• identifies supporting and limiting factors;
• discusses the novelty of the intervention; and
• provides implications for educational practice and community development.

F. Presentation and References

Reviewers also assess:

• organization and clarity of the manuscript;
• quality of academic language;
• consistency of terminology;
• quality and relevance of tables and figures;
• adequacy and recency of references;
• consistency of citations and references; and
• compliance with APA 7th Edition.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the assessment, reviewers provide comments and recommendations to the Editor.

The possible recommendations are:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive revision or only minor editorial adjustments.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited revisions that do not substantially change the study or program.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revision involving important issues related to methodology, analysis, interpretation, presentation, or academic contribution.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements and is not considered suitable for publication.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor based on the reviewers' assessments and the overall quality of the manuscript.

7. Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments should be:

• objective;
• constructive;
• specific;
• evidence-based;
• respectful; and
• focused on improving the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers should clearly identify major and minor concerns and provide practical recommendations whenever possible.

Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• share the manuscript with other individuals without permission from the Editor;
• distribute or reproduce the manuscript;
• use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;
• disclose the content of the manuscript to third parties; or
• use the manuscript to advance their own research before publication.

The confidentiality requirement applies during and after the review process.

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting an invitation to review.

A reviewer should decline the assignment if:

• they have a personal or professional relationship with the authors;
• they have collaborated closely with the authors;
• they have a financial or institutional interest in the manuscript;
• they are involved in competing research;
• they cannot provide an impartial assessment; or
• they have another relationship that could compromise their objectivity.

If a potential conflict of interest becomes apparent after accepting the assignment, the reviewer should immediately inform the Editor.

10. Reviewer Independence

Reviewers must provide independent assessments based solely on the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

• nationality;
• ethnicity;
• religion;
• gender;
• institutional affiliation;
• academic rank;
• political views;
• personal relationships; or
• commercial interests.

11. Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the timeframe specified in the review invitation.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the agreed period, they should inform the Editor as soon as possible.

The Editor may appoint another reviewer when necessary to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process.

12. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors must submit:

1. a revised version of the manuscript; and
2. a detailed response to the reviewers' comments.

Authors should clearly indicate how each substantive reviewer comment has been addressed.

Where a reviewer recommendation is not adopted, authors should provide a reasonable academic justification.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when the Editor considers this necessary.

13. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor makes the final publication decision after considering:

• reviewer recommendations;
• the quality of the revised manuscript;
• the authors' responses to reviewer comments;
• compliance with journal policies;
• ethical considerations; and
• the overall contribution of the manuscript.

Possible final decisions include:

• Accept
• Accept with Minor Revisions
• Revise and Resubmit
• Reject

The Editor's decision is independent of the publication charge.

14. Editorial Independence

The journal maintains editorial independence throughout the peer-review and publication process.

Payment of the Publication Charge does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and the manuscript's contribution to the field.

15. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are expected to follow recognized standards of publication ethics.

Reviewers must:

• provide fair and unbiased assessments;
• maintain manuscript confidentiality;
• identify relevant published work that has not been cited when appropriate;
• alert the Editor to potential plagiarism or duplicate publication;
• disclose conflicts of interest;
• avoid using unpublished information for personal benefit; and
• submit reviews within the agreed timeframe.

The journal follows recognized principles of publication ethics, including the principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

16. Use of Generative AI by Reviewers

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished manuscript content to publicly accessible Generative AI systems or other external platforms.

Generative AI tools must not be used as a substitute for the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their review reports.

17. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that a significant procedural error has occurred during the peer-review process may submit a formal appeal to the Editor.

Appeals must:

• be submitted in writing;
• clearly explain the basis of the appeal;
• identify the specific procedural or substantive concern; and
• provide relevant supporting information where applicable.

An appeal does not automatically result in acceptance or reconsideration of the manuscript. The Editor will assess the appeal according to the journal's editorial policies and publication ethics principles.

18. Reviewer Recognition

The journal values the contribution of reviewers to maintaining the quality of scholarly publishing.

Subject to confidentiality and ethical requirements, the journal may provide reviewers with:

• a certificate of review;
• acknowledgment of reviewer contributions;
• recognition through appropriate journal or institutional channels; or
• other forms of recognition approved by the Editorial Board.

19. Review Process Summary

The overall peer-review workflow is:

Manuscript Submission → Initial Editorial Screening → Reviewer Selection → Double-Blind Peer Review → Reviewer Recommendations → Editorial Decision → Revision (if required) → Further Review (if necessary) → Final Decision → Publication

The journal is committed to ensuring that the peer-review process is fair, transparent, confidential, timely, and academically rigorous.