Peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality, validity, originality, and scientific contribution of manuscripts submitted to SENSISTEK: Riset Sains dan Teknologi Kelautan. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, evidence-based, and constructive evaluations relevant to marine science, maritime technology, ocean engineering, coastal systems, and related fields.

The journal applies a double-anonymous peer review process. Reviewers should follow the guidelines below and submit their reports through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

1. Introduction

Reviewers are essential to ensuring the scientific integrity, academic credibility, and publication quality of SENSISTEK. Every manuscript should be evaluated objectively, fairly, professionally, and confidentially.

2. General Guidelines

1. Reviewers must have academic expertise or research experience relevant to the assigned manuscript.
2. Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of the manuscript and must not disclose or share its contents without prior editorial authorization.
3. Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the independence of their assessments.
4. Unpublished information, data, methods, or findings obtained during peer review must not be used for personal or professional advantage.
5. Assessment must be based solely on scientific merit, regardless of the authors’ identities, institutions, or backgrounds.
6. Comments must be objective, specific, courteous, constructive, and supported by sound scientific reasoning.
7. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or manuscript-related information to external artificial intelligence (AI) tools or services without authorization in accordance with journal policy.

3. Peer Review Procedure

1. Reviewers receive an invitation through the OJS platform.
2. Reviewers have up to 14 days to accept or decline the invitation.
3. After accepting the invitation, reviewers gain access to the assigned manuscript.
4. Reviewers evaluate the scientific content, methodological soundness, and suitability of the manuscript for publication.
5. Reviewers are expected to complete the assessment within 28 days, subject to the deadline indicated in OJS.
6. Reviewers provide their written comments and select a recommendation using the standard OJS review interface. A separate review form is not required.
7. The responsible editor considers the reviewer reports and makes the final editorial decision.

4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should consider the following aspects as appropriate to the type and scope of the manuscript:

1. Relevance and Scope: Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope.
2. Originality and Contribution: Novelty, scholarly significance, and contribution to scientific or engineering knowledge.
3. Title, Abstract, and Keywords: Clarity, accuracy, completeness, and relevance.
4. Introduction and Objectives: Quality of background, clarity of research questions, and appropriateness of objectives.
5. Literature Review: Adequacy, relevance, and currency of references.
6. Methodology: Suitability, scientific rigor, data processing, assumptions, and analytical procedures.
7. Validity and Reproducibility: Reliability, transparency, verification or validation where relevant, and reproducibility where applicable.
8. Results and Discussion: Soundness of results, depth of interpretation, comparisons with prior research, and acknowledgment of limitations.
9. Conclusions: Consistency with the objectives, evidence, and reported results.
10. Presentation: Scientific writing, organization, figures, tables, equations, and references.
11. Research and Publication Ethics: Compliance with ethical standards and research integrity.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the assessment, reviewers may select one of the following recommendations, subject to the options available in OJS:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial revisions.
• Revisions Required: The manuscript needs improvements before further editorial consideration.
• Resubmit for Review: Substantial revisions are required, followed by another round of peer review.
• Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scope or scientific standards.
• See Comments: The reviewer refers the editor to the written assessment without selecting another specific recommendation, if this option is available.

6. Publication Ethics and Confidentiality

Reviewers must promptly inform the editor if they identify or suspect plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, ethical misconduct, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other integrity concerns.

All manuscripts and supplementary files must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not reproduce, distribute, publicly discuss, or exploit unpublished material without appropriate permission.

Reviewers should not contact authors directly about manuscripts under review. Review-related communication must take place through the editor and OJS.

If a reviewer recognizes an author despite the double-anonymous process, the reviewer should maintain confidentiality and notify the editor if a conflict of interest may arise.

7. Closing Statement

The contribution of peer reviewers is essential to maintaining the scientific integrity and publication quality of SENSISTEK: Riset Sains dan Teknologi Kelautan. Reviewers are encouraged to provide critical, fair, constructive, and timely assessments that strengthen manuscripts and support the dissemination of reliable scientific knowledge.