Review Process Policy

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to RETIPA: Jurnal Riset Teknologi Pangan dan Hasil Pertanian undergo an initial screening by the editorial team. This stage evaluates the manuscript's suitability for the journal's focus and scope, its compliance with the author guidelines and manuscript template, the completeness of the submission, and its general scientific relevance.

The editorial team may return a manuscript to the author for technical corrections or additional information before proceeding to peer review. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or raise serious ethical concerns may be rejected at this stage.

2. Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are forwarded for peer review by qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, accuracy of data interpretation, relevance of the discussion, clarity of presentation, and contribution of the manuscript to the field of food technology and agricultural product science.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to assist the editor in determining the manuscript's suitability for publication.

3. Review Model and Confidentiality

RETIPA applies a peer-review process in accordance with the journal's established editorial policy. The review model and the identities disclosed to authors and reviewers are managed according to the journal's declared review arrangements.

Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript contents or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must notify the editor of any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality and should decline the assignment when an appropriate and objective assessment cannot be provided.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's scientific merit, and the journal's editorial standards, the editor makes a decision regarding the submission. Possible decisions include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any final editorial or production requirements.

  • Minor Revision: The author is requested to make limited revisions to address the reviewers' or editor's comments.

  • Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

The editor communicates the decision and relevant reviewer comments to the corresponding author through the journal's online submission system.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

5. Revision and Resubmission

Authors are expected to address the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully and systematically.

When submitting a revised manuscript, authors should provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. If a suggestion is not adopted, the authors should provide a clear scientific justification.

Revisions should be submitted within the deadline communicated by the editorial team. If an extension is needed, the corresponding author should contact the editor before the deadline.

The editor may request further revisions or reject a manuscript if the responses and revisions do not adequately address the issues raise