For Editors

Editors’ roles and responsibilities

Editors at Hindawi assess each submitted manuscript's scope and quality and make a recommendation based on feedback from peer reviewers. Editorial Boards are collectively responsible for ensuring that the journal publishes high-quality research that falls within its scope and objectives.

Handling manuscripts

One of an Editor’s most important tasks is to decide whether or not a manuscript should be published in one of our journals. This guide explains the steps involved in the decision-making process and offers help for new Editors.

Editors at Journal of Economic and Social Empowerment (JOESMENT) are responsible for deciding whether a manuscript should be published as an article in a journal. If you are a new Editor or a Guest Editor or if you have not handled a manuscript for some time, this guide provides step-by-step assistance for the editorial process.

Manuscripts are handled using the open journal system (https://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/industri). Editors receive an email when they are invited to handle a new manuscript.

Receiving a manuscript

Our team assign manuscripts based on an Editor’s field of study and current workload. Editors should be comfortable with the topic of the manuscript, but an in-depth understanding is not essential. It is the role of the peer reviewers to assess the technical details. However, if an Editor finds that a manuscript is too far from their area of expertise, they should decline to handle the manuscript.

Although we select our Editors carefully, if an Editor suspects a conflict of interest (e.g., they work in the same institution as one of the authors or are working on a competitive project), they should decline to handle the manuscript.

Initial evaluation

Journal of Economic and Social Empowerment (JOESMENT) performs essential editorial screening on all submissions before assigning them to Editors.

On receiving a manuscript, Editors should check if it is potentially suitable for publication. They should consider whether the article suits the scientific scope of the journal and the basic quality of the article. Submissions failing this evaluation should be rejected immediately. All other articles should be sent for formal peer review.

Recruiting peer reviewers

Editors should invite at least two reviewers to assess the manuscript. We encourage Editors to invite reviewers of their choosing, but the Journal of Economic and Social Empowerment (JOESMENT) system will also provide reviewer suggestions.

There are many important factors to consider when selecting a peer reviewer.

Are they impartial?

Reviewers should not work at the same institution as any of the authors or have active or recent collaboration with any of them. Avoid using any referees whom the authors have requested not to be invited. If we detect a potential conflict of interest, we will ask you to assign a different reviewer. See our page on ‘Managing Conflicts of Interest’ for more information.

Are they qualified?

Reviewers should have significant experience in the relevant field. Editors can assess a reviewer’s experience by looking at their publication history. Reviewers range from post-doctoral researchers through to emeritus professors, but occasionally experts from industry may also be appropriate.

Do they cover every necessary expertise?

It may not be possible for a particular referee to assess all aspects of a manuscript adequately. For example, if a manuscript covers practical laboratory-based experiments and high-level theoretical work, it may not be possible to find a single reviewer with all the necessary skills. Editors should ensure that the reviewers are capable, between them, of covering the breadth of techniques employed.

Editors may choose reviewers from their existing academic network. They may have come into contact with suitable reviewers through conferences or collaboration or as colleagues. Searching for key terms in abstracting and indexing services is another excellent way to find referees. We also suggest browsing a manuscript’s reference list to discover researchers working on similar topics. Finding peer reviewers is not always easy, as appropriate candidates may not have the time to accept your invitation.

Asking those who decline an invitation to suggest similarly qualified experts, perhaps from their own research group or institution, is an excellent way of gathering further recommendations.

Reviewers may, upon request, consult with colleagues from their own research group so long as the confidentiality of the manuscript can be maintained. In such cases, we ask that they note the colleague's name (s) in the ‘comments to the editor’ section of their report.

Making a decision

Having read and assessed the manuscript, each reviewer will provide a report along with one of the following recommendations:

Reject - Rejected manuscripts will not be published, and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript to Journal of Economic and Social Empowerment (JOESMENT).
Resubmit for Review– The submission needs to be re-worked, but it may be accepted with significant changes. However, It will require a second round of review.
Accept with Revisions - Manuscripts receiving an accept-pending-revisions decision will be published in Journal of Economic and Social Empowerment (JOESMENT) under the condition that Minor or Major modifications are made. An editorial team will review revisions to ensure necessary updates are made before publication.
Accept - Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form, with no further modifications required.

Considering the reviewers’ recommendations and deciding the fate of a manuscript is not always straightforward. If a majority of reviewers suggest the rejection of a manuscript, then it must be rejected. However, if just one reviewer notices a fundamental technical flaw and suggests rejection, it can warrant a manuscript's rejection despite positive recommendations from the other reviewers.

Published manuscripts must be technically sound. Concerns over the validity of the experimental process, or logically employed, should result in rejection. The perceived importance and potential impact of a manuscript should not be a primary cause for rejection, though papers should present original research and add to scientific understanding. Journal of Economic and Social Empowerment (JOESMENT) journals publish work of significance to specialists, but replicative and highly derivative work should be rejected unless a strong scientific case supports publication.

If the reviewers raise insurmountable problems, for example, if the experiments are critically flawed or the results have been presented previously, then the Editor should reject the manuscript.

If the manuscript could be improved to make it more suitable for publication, the Editor should invite the authors to revise and resubmit. We ask Editors to use ‘Accept with Revisions’ if they are confident that they can assess personally whether the suggested changes have been made properly. If an Editor believes they require the reviewers’ expertise to assess the changes, they should use ‘Resubmit for Review’ instead.

If the reviewers find no fault and deem the manuscript suitable for publication in its current state, the Editor may choose to use 'Accept.'

Confidentiality

All manuscripts should be kept completely confidential. Editors should not use any of their insights until after publication.

Journal of Economic and Social Empowerment (JOESMENT) operates a ‘double-blind’ approach to peer review. Reviewers unknow the authors’ names, and the authors are not told the reviewers’ names. At no time should an Editor communicate the reviewers' names to the authors or anybody else in the community.