Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Venus, published by Politeknik Ilmu Pelayaran Makassar, Indonesia, undergo an initial editorial assessment followed, where appropriate, by independent scholarly peer review. The journal follows a double-blind peer-review approach, under which authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed from one another during the review process. All submissions are evaluated for relevance to the journal's maritime scope, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, and contribution to scholarly knowledge. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's quality and the reviewers' recommendations, not on the author's identity or institutional affiliation.

Upon submission through the online journal system, the editor conducts an initial screening to assess the completeness and suitability of the manuscript. The following aspects are considered:

• Compliance with the Author Guidelines, manuscript template, and submission requirements.
• Alignment with the Focus and Scope of Jurnal Venus.
• Originality, research ethics, authorship declarations, and potential plagiarism concerns.
• Academic writing quality, methodological adequacy, and potential scholarly contribution.

Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be returned for technical or substantive corrections or rejected at the desk-review stage. Passing this stage does not guarantee acceptance.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified and independent peer reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript. Jurnal Venus proposes the use of at least two reviewers per manuscript, subject to confirmation of the journal's established editorial procedure.

The editorial office takes reasonable steps to conceal identifying author details from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors. Reviewers must declare potential conflicts of interest and decline an assignment when impartiality cannot be maintained. Submitted manuscripts and reviewer reports are confidential.

The evaluation focuses on originality, significance, theoretical and methodological soundness, validity of data and analysis, adequacy of references, clarity of presentation, research ethics, and relevance to maritime scholarship.

Each reviewer provides a reasoned written assessment and a recommendation to the handling editor. Reviewer recommendations may include:

1. Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes.
2. Minor revisions: The manuscript is potentially suitable after limited corrections to clarity, presentation, or other specified matters.
3. Major revisions: Substantial changes to the analysis, methods, interpretation, structure, or supporting evidence are required before reconsideration.
4. Reject: The manuscript has fundamental scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope-related deficiencies.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The handling editor or Editor-in-Chief makes the editorial decision after considering the full record. Where reports conflict, the editor may seek an additional assessment.

When revisions are requested, authors receive the editorial decision and relevant reviewer comments through OJS. Authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response that explains how each concern was addressed or provides a reasoned justification where no change was made.

Proposed revision deadlines are 14 days for minor revisions and 28 days for major revisions. These timeframes are editorial targets based on the draft procedure and must be confirmed by the journal before adoption. The editor may approve an extension when justified.

The editorial team may return a revised manuscript to the original reviewers or appoint additional reviewers where further evaluation is needed.

After considering the review reports, author responses, and any subsequent assessment, the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision to accept, request further revisions, or reject the manuscript. A revised submission may still be rejected if major scientific or ethical concerns remain unresolved.

All editorial decisions must be made fairly, independently, and transparently and should be recorded through the journal management system. Reviewer comments inform but do not replace editorial judgment.

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, reference and metadata checks, language proofreading where necessary, and layout production in accordance with the journal template. The editorial team may request clarifications to ensure accuracy, consistency, accessibility, and publication quality.

A proof may be sent to the corresponding author to confirm the accuracy of names, affiliations, figures, tables, and the typeset text. Proof corrections should ordinarily be limited to typographical or production errors; substantive alterations require editorial approval.

Following production checks and author proof approval where applicable, the final article is published on the official Jurnal Venus website and assigned or displayed with its registered DOI in accordance with the journal’s DOI policy. The article and its metadata become available through the journal’s online archive.

Jurnal Venus publishes issues twice a year, in March and September. Publication is subject to editorial acceptance, production readiness, and the journal's publication schedule. Online publication is the standard procedure; printed copies are not promised by this policy.

Editors and reviewers must safeguard the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and assess conflicts of interest before performing their duties. Personal criticism, biased judgments, and misuse of unpublished research are prohibited.

In accordance with the Jurnal Venus AI Usage Policy and the applicable 2026 journal accreditation guidance, peer reviewers must not use AI systems to analyze submitted manuscripts, generate review comments, assess the work, or conduct their peer-review responsibilities. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, extracts, figures, tables, or confidential assessment materials to AI services.

Concerns relating to plagiarism, data fabrication, inappropriate AI use, authorship, or other possible misconduct will be considered under the Publication Ethics policy. The editor should provide an appropriate opportunity for clarification; automated similarity or AI-detection scores alone are not conclusive evidence of misconduct.

These are indicative targets, not guaranteed processing times. Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of review rounds. The editorial board must approve these targets before they are treated as official journal commitments.

Authors seeking clarification about an editorial decision or the review process may contact the editorial office or consult the journal's relevant policies.