Jurnal Syntax Admiration is a double blind peer reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the Jurnal Syntax Admiration for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility of the papers. The peer review at Jurnal Syntax Admiration proceeds in 9 steps with the description as follows.

1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). But in order to facilitate authors, Jurnal Syntax Admiration temporarily also accepts paper submissions by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The submitted paper is first assessed by Jurnal Syntax Admiration Journal editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable with the Journal focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper which passes this step will be checked by Turnitin to identify any plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

4. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends out invitations to individuals he believes will be appropriate reviewers (also known as referees) based on expertise, proximity of research interests, and no consideration of conflicts of interest. The peer review process in the Journal of Syntax Transformation: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia involves a community of experts in the narrowly defined fields of Humanities and social sciences, contemporary political science, education, religious science and philosophy, economics, narrowly defined engineering sciences that are qualified and able to carry out impartiality fairly.   Impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review used in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the identity of the author, on the contrary, the author does not know the identity of the reviewer.  The paper was sent to reviewers anonymously.

5. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitations to be contrary to their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or reject. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask a potential reviewer for advice from an alternative reviewer, when he or she refuses to review.

 

6. Review Conducted

Reviewers allocate time to read the paper several times. The first readings were used to form an initial impression of the work. If a major problem is found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper a few more times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept, or reject it, or with a revision request (usually marked as major or minor) before being reconsidered

 

7. Journal Evaluating Reviews

The Editor-in-Chief and the handling editor consider all reviews returned before making an overall decision. If the review differs considerably between the two reviewers, the handling editor may invite additional reviewers to get additional opinions before making a decision

 

8. Decision Communicated

The editor sends an email of the decision to the author including the relevant reviewer's comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the relevant authors to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also sent an email or letter informing them of the results of their review.

 

9. Final Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to copy-editing. If an article is rejected or sent back to the author for a major or minor revision, the handler editor will include constructive comments from the reviewer to help the author improve the article. The author must make corrections and revise the paper according to the comments and instructions of the reviewer. After the revision is made, the author must resubmit the revised paper to the editor. If the paper is sent back for revision, reviewers should expect to accept the revised version, unless they have chosen not to participate further. However, if only minor changes are requested, this follow-up review can be done by the handling editor. If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is considered acceptable. The accepted papers will be published online and they are all available for free as downloadable pdf files.