Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Venus, published by Politeknik Ilmu Pelayaran Makassar, Indonesia, undergo an initial editorial screening followed by independent scholarly peer review when the manuscript satisfies the journal's basic editorial requirements. Jurnal Venus applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process.

Editorial evaluation is based on relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, methodological rigor, research integrity, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, adequacy of references, and contribution to maritime scholarship and professional practice. Editorial decisions are based on academic merit and reviewer recommendations without discrimination based on the identity, affiliation, nationality, gender, or institutional background of the authors.

Every manuscript submitted through the Jurnal Venus online submission system is first evaluated by the editorial team. The initial screening is normally completed within seven working days after submission, provided that all required submission materials have been supplied.

The editorial screening covers the following aspects:

• Compliance with the Author Guidelines, journal template, and submission requirements.
• Alignment with the Focus and Scope of Jurnal Venus.
• Originality and similarity screening in accordance with the journal's plagiarism policy.
• Research ethics, authorship, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and other relevant ethical declarations.
• Methodological adequacy, academic writing quality, originality of the research problem, and potential scholarly contribution.
• Compliance of references with the journal's requirements, including relevance, recency, bibliographic completeness, and DOI verification where available.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet basic scholarly standards, contain serious ethical problems, or do not comply with essential submission requirements may be rejected without external review. Manuscripts with correctable technical deficiencies may be returned to the authors before peer review. Passing the desk-review stage does not guarantee acceptance.

Every manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent peer reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewer assignments are managed and recorded through the journal's OJS editorial workflow.

Jurnal Venus applies a double-blind review system. Identifying information is removed or concealed as far as reasonably possible before the manuscript is sent for review. Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, scholarly competence, independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and decline an invitation when they cannot provide an independent and impartial assessment. Submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, editorial correspondence, and reviewer reports are confidential.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's originality, significance, research question, theoretical basis, methodological soundness, validity of data and analysis, interpretation of results, adequacy and accuracy of references, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and relevance to maritime scholarship.

Reviewers who accept an invitation are requested to submit their completed review report within 28 calendar days. Reviewers who anticipate being unable to meet the deadline should inform the editorial office as early as possible.

When a reviewer does not respond or is unable to complete the review within a reasonable period, the editor may appoint a replacement reviewer. The integrity and completeness of the peer-review process take precedence over speed of publication.

Reviewers provide a reasoned written assessment and recommendation to the handling editor. Recommendations may include:

1. Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
2. Minor Revision: Limited corrections are required before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.
3. Major Revision: Substantial changes to the methodology, analysis, interpretation, structure, evidence, or presentation are required before further consideration.
4. Reject: The manuscript contains fundamental scientific, methodological, ethical, originality, or scope-related deficiencies.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief after considering the complete review record. When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may request clarification or appoint an additional reviewer.

When revision is required, authors receive the editorial decision and relevant reviewer comments through OJS. Authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. Where the authors do not adopt a recommendation, a clear academic justification must be provided.

The standard revision period is 14 calendar days for minor revisions and 28 calendar days for major revisions. Authors who require additional time must request an extension from the handling editor before the deadline and provide an appropriate justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for reassessment, particularly after major revision. The editor may also appoint an additional reviewer when further specialist evaluation is required.

After considering reviewer reports, author responses, revised manuscripts, and any additional assessment, the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision to accept, request further revision, or reject the manuscript.

Acceptance is based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal, and satisfactory response to peer-review comments. A revised manuscript may still be rejected when significant scientific, methodological, ethical, or integrity concerns remain unresolved.

If an Editor-in-Chief, editor, reviewer, or other member of the journal's editorial structure is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript, that individual must not participate in reviewer selection, peer review, editorial discussion, or the final decision for that manuscript. The submission will be handled independently by another qualified editor without a conflict of interest.

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and technical verification before publication. The editorial team checks the consistency of author names, affiliations, article title, abstract, keywords, citations, references, tables, figures, and other metadata between the manuscript, galley, and OJS record.

References are checked for bibliographic accuracy and DOI validity where applicable. The journal may request authors to correct references that are incomplete, inaccurate, irrelevant, unverifiable, or inconsistent with the journal's reference requirements.

Language proofreading is conducted where necessary. A final proof may be sent to the corresponding author to verify author names, affiliations, tables, figures, and typeset content. Proof-stage corrections should ordinarily be limited to factual, typographical, formatting, or production errors.

A manuscript is scheduled for publication only after completing peer review, receiving formal editorial acceptance, completing copyediting and production checks, and satisfying the journal's publication requirements.

Jurnal Venus publishes two issues each year, in March and September. Accepted articles are published according to editorial readiness and the journal's publication schedule. Acceptance of a manuscript does not guarantee publication in a particular issue.

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and all associated review materials. Manuscripts may not be shared, distributed, discussed with unauthorized persons, or used for personal or professional advantage before publication.

Peer reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, extracts, figures, tables, datasets, reviewer reports, or other confidential editorial materials to generative artificial intelligence systems or other external AI services. AI systems must not be used to generate peer-review reports or replace the reviewer's independent scholarly assessment.

Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate use of AI, manipulated data, or other potential research misconduct will be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy. Automated similarity or AI-detection scores alone are not treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct.

Jurnal Venus does not guarantee manuscript acceptance, editorial decisions, or publication within a predetermined period and does not provide a fast-track peer-review route that bypasses the journal's standard editorial and peer-review procedures. Every manuscript must complete the applicable editorial screening, independent peer review, revision, and final verification stages before publication.

The periods above represent the journal's standard editorial deadlines for individual stages. The total processing time may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revision and review rounds, author response time, and editorial requirements. These timelines do not constitute a guarantee of acceptance or publication.

Authors seeking clarification regarding the peer-review process or an editorial decision may consult the relevant editorial policies or contact the Jurnal Venus editorial office.