Peer Review Process

MURNI: Multidisciplinary Review of Nusantara Innovation employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process designed to ensure rigorous, fair, transparent, and high-quality evaluation of all manuscripts submitted for publication. Under the double-blind review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

The double-blind review mechanism is intended to minimize potential biases arising from factors such as the author's institutional affiliation, academic reputation, nationality, geographical location, gender, or previous publications. Manuscripts submitted by established or well-known scholars are evaluated solely on the basis of their scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and contribution to the advancement of multidisciplinary knowledge and innovation.

MURNI's peer-review policy is guided by internationally recognized principles of publication ethics, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and its Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to MURNI undergo an initial editorial screening before being considered for external peer review. The editorial team assesses each submission for its alignment with the journal's aims and scope, originality, academic relevance, manuscript structure, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance, and conformity with the journal's submission guidelines.

The initial screening may also include an assessment of the manuscript's similarity, authorship, research ethics, completeness of required information, and overall suitability for external review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic academic, ethical, or editorial requirements may be rejected at the initial screening stage without being sent for external peer review. Manuscripts that satisfy the preliminary requirements are forwarded to qualified reviewers for further evaluation.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Under the double-blind system, reviewers do not have access to the identities or institutional affiliations of the authors, and authors do not have access to the identities of the reviewers. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently, focusing on the scholarly substance and quality of the work rather than the identity, reputation, institutional status, or geographical background of the authors.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on several considerations, including:

originality and novelty of the research;
relevance to the aims and scope of MURNI;
clarity and coherence of the research objectives;
appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;
quality, adequacy, and reliability of data and analysis;
relevance and adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
quality and currency of the literature review;
coherence between research questions, methods, findings, and conclusions;
significance and contribution to multidisciplinary scholarship;
relevance of the research to innovation, society, or broader scholarly development;
quality of academic argumentation and discussion;
ethical compliance; and
clarity, organization, and overall scholarly quality of the manuscript.

Review Duration

MURNI is committed to conducting the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards. The duration of the review process may vary depending on the availability of qualified reviewers, the complexity and disciplinary scope of the manuscript, the number of revision rounds, and the responsiveness of the authors.

The initial peer-review process normally takes approximately 4–8 weeks. Manuscripts requiring substantial revisions, additional expert assessment, or multiple rounds of peer review may require additional time.

MURNI does not compromise the quality, independence, or integrity of the peer-review process merely to accelerate publication. Authors will be informed of significant delays whenever reasonably possible.

Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations to the editor. Reviewer recommendations may include:

Accept Submission – the manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial adjustments;
Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions before a final editorial decision can be made;
Major Revision – substantial revisions are required, particularly concerning methodology, analysis, theoretical or conceptual framework, discussion, interpretation, or other significant aspects of the manuscript;
Resubmit for Review – the manuscript requires substantial revision and should undergo another round of peer review; or
Reject – the manuscript does not meet the academic, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards required for publication in MURNI.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory and does not constitute the final publication decision.

Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor based on the reviewers' evaluations, the quality and integrity of the manuscript, its relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and MURNI's editorial standards.

Where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor may request an additional review from another qualified reviewer or seek further expert advice before reaching a final decision.

The editorial decision may therefore differ from an individual reviewer's recommendation when the editor determines that such a decision is justified by the overall scholarly evidence, methodological considerations, ethical requirements, and relevance to the journal.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must revise the manuscript carefully in response to the reviewers' comments and editorial recommendations.

Authors are expected to provide a point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed. Where authors decide not to implement a particular recommendation, they should provide a clear and academically justified explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial revisions have been requested.

MURNI may conduct more than one round of revision and peer review when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's academic, methodological, and ethical standards.

Second-Round Review

A manuscript that has undergone major revision may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other qualified reviewers for a second-round evaluation.

The purpose of the second-round review is to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive concerns raised during the previous review and whether the revised manuscript meets the publication standards of MURNI.

The editor may make a final decision after the second-round review or request further revision where substantial issues remain unresolved.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit of the manuscript and are not influenced by the author's academic position, institutional affiliation, nationality, geographical location, gender, religious background, political views, personal relationships, academic reputation, or other non-academic considerations.

MURNI is committed to maintaining editorial independence and ensuring that the peer-review process is conducted fairly, professionally, consistently, and without inappropriate external influence.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication based on the status, reputation, institutional affiliation, or professional position of an author.

Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

All manuscripts submitted to MURNI are treated as confidential documents throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal, professional, or research purposes. Reviewers must also disclose any potential conflict of interest and decline the assignment when such a conflict could compromise the objectivity or independence of their assessment.

Editors and editorial staff must likewise maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and must not use unpublished information obtained through the editorial process for personal or professional advantage.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff are expected to comply with MURNI's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing.

Acceptance and Publication

Once a manuscript has received a final acceptance decision, it proceeds to the editorial production stage. This stage may include copyediting, language editing, formatting, proofreading, metadata verification, plagiarism or similarity verification where necessary, and final author approval before publication.

The order of publication is determined by the editorial team based on factors including the completion of the editorial and production process, thematic coherence, issue planning, disciplinary balance, and the journal's publication schedule.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not guarantee immediate publication in a particular issue.

MURNI aims to maintain an efficient and predictable publication schedule while prioritizing the quality, integrity, and scholarly value of every article published.

The overall time from initial submission to publication may vary depending on the peer-review process, revision requirements, editorial decisions, production procedures, and the responsiveness of authors and reviewers. As a general guideline, the complete publication process may take approximately 3–9 months, although some manuscripts may be processed more quickly or require additional time depending on the circumstances.

MURNI does not guarantee publication within a fixed timeframe, as editorial and peer-review decisions are determined primarily by academic quality, methodological rigor, ethical standards, and the overall contribution of the manuscript rather than publication speed.