Focus and Scope

Jurnal Abdikarya: Jurnal Karya Pengabdian Dosen Dan Mahasiswa memuat artikel ilmiah yang berfokus pada bidang teknologi tepat guna dan kewirausahaan

  1. Community Services
  2. People
  3. Local Food Security
  4. Training
  5. Marketing
  6. Appropriate Technology
  7. Design
  8. Community Empowerment
  9. Social Access
  10. Cultural Exchange
  11. Student Community Services
  12. Education for Sustainable Development
  13. The results of community service activities are in the form of application and assistance to the community in various fields of science, including:
    1. Education,
    2. Law,
    3. Psychology,
    4. Agriculture,
    5. Management,
    6. Information Technology,
    7. Social Humanities,
    8. Culture,
    9. Appropriate Technology, and
    10. Other Fields of Science.


Peer Review Process

Peer review comes in different flavours: you must therefore check which variant is employed by the journal on which you are working so you’re aware of the respective rules. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Often one type of review will be preferred by a subject community but there is an increasing call towards more transparency around the peer review process. In case of questions regarding the peer review model employed by the journal for which you have been invited to review, consult the journal’s homepage or contact the editorial office directly.

Single blind review

In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single blind review include:

  1. Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions – the reviewers should not be influenced by the authors.
  2. Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.
  3. Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors’ work.

Double-blind review

Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.

  1. Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, for example based on an author's gender, country of origin, academic status or previous publication history.
  2. Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.

But bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. More information for authors can be found in our double-blind peer review guidelines.

Triple-blind review

With triple-blind review, reviewers are anonymous and the author's identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in such a way to minimize any potential bias towards the author(s). However, it should be noted that:

  1. the complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable
  2. as with double-blind review; there is still a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly divine the author’s identity from their style, subject matter, citation patterns or a number of other methodologies

Open review

Open peer review is an umbrella term for many different models aiming at greater transparency during and after the peer review process. The most common definition of open review is when both the reviewer and author are known to each other during the peer review process. Other types of open peer review consist of:

  1. publication of reviewers’ names on the article page.
  2. publication of peer review reports alongside the article, whether signed or anonymous.
  3. publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) together with authors’ and editors’ responses alongside the article.
  4. publication of the paper after a quick check and opening a discussion forum to the community who can comment (named or anonymous).

Many believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Transparency Principle

The Principle of Transparency and the Accountablity

The principle of transparency is the fundamental protection of the scientific activity. It assumes the full clarity and accountability of processes that take place in science mainly, the spread of full list of information about the actions to all the interested individuals and the key parameters in order to verify them by the international scientific community. In the context of Predatory Journals practices, principle of transparency is understood as the willingness of Editorial Offices to be assessed by the international scientific community in case of reliability of their editorial processes while working with manuscripts (this means: the acceptance of manuscript, preliminary assessment, review, publication, and distribution). Maintaining the principle of transparency by journals is to enable to confirm that the Editorial Offices provide accountable scientific editorial services that are crucial for the scientific environment.

The accountable scientific editorial services may be understood as:

Publishing complete information about the conditions needed for the articles to be published (the publication charges, the formal requirements of manuscripts, submission deadlines and the estimated time of manuscript acceptance to the first review and manuscript publication)

  1. Transparent criteria of manuscript rejection (when its topic is inconsistent with the journal’s profile, publisher’s policy, publisher’s requirements or when its scientific quality is not enough to be published),
  2. Feedback for the author on each step of editorial process,
  3. Transparent principles of review (including the selection of reviewers who are specialists in a particular study, preferably from different affiliation than the author of a publication),
  4. The proper review standards (parametrical and qualitative assessment of manuscript) as well as peer review dialog,
  5. Sharing the full content of scientific articles along with the data which served as the source for conclusions in electronic version in open access.

Standard of Scientific Review

Jurnal Abdikarya: Jurnal Karya Pengabdian Dosen Dan Mahasiswa experts pay attention to the fact that nowadays the values of scientific work reviews ale underrated. An accountable review based on the peer review dialog is crucial for the scientific activity and increasement of the scientists competencies. The most challenging actions for those who create the scientific policy at universities, associations, scientific academies, and for those who financially regulate the scientific activities are development and implementation of high standards of scientific reviews. Having more than fifteen years’ experience in releasing the scientific journals, we recommend the given components of a proper scientific review:

Parametric assessment of manuscript, these are the closed-ended questions in review questionnaire. They consists of criteria suggested by the Editorial Office, such as topicality of discussed issues, originality of the theses or the substantive level of publications which are assessed by the reviewer who gives special points for them.

  1. Qualitative assessment of manuscript is a descriptive part of the review, where the reviewer indicates the positive as well as negative sides of the assessed article.
  2. Peer review dialogis a written form of communication between the author of a particular publication and a person who conducts the review. It can also mean all changes that, according to the reviewer, the author should introduce to the work.
  3. Peer review dialog indicates that the manuscripts were reviewed properly. Consequently, these manuscripts may be accepted to the publication, on the condition that the necessary changes are introduced.

The practice proposed by Index Copernicus, which is an exemplification of the transparency of reliable editorial services, is publishing by the Editorial Office part of the review containing at least one positive as well as negative remark concerning the authenticity of presented in the work researches plus their influence on the development or spread of study. This practice can be helpful for the general audience to familiarize with the initial opinion about a given work, as well as it can be a supplement to the article’s abstract.