1. Editorial Assessment and Peer Review System

The suitability of manuscripts for publication in JURNAL TRITON is determined through an initial editorial assessment and a rigorous peer-review process. The journal applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for overseeing the editorial process, maintaining communication with authors and reviewers, and making the final decision regarding manuscript acceptance, rejection, or revision. All editorial decisions are made based on the manuscript's scientific merit, originality, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, methodological rigor, and compliance with publication ethics.

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief and/or Section Editors conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's scope, submission requirements, academic standards, and publication ethics policies. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Similarity Screening Policy

All submitted manuscripts are subject to a similarity check using appropriate plagiarism-detection software before proceeding to the peer-review process. The maximum acceptable similarity index is 20%, excluding the reference list and appropriately identified quotations, in accordance with the journal's screening policy.

A similarity index below the specified threshold does not automatically guarantee that a manuscript is free from plagiarism. The editorial team evaluates the similarity report to identify potential plagiarism, inappropriate paraphrasing, redundant publication, and unattributed use of other authors' work.

Manuscripts exceeding the permitted similarity threshold may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected, depending on the severity of the identified issues. Any suspected research misconduct is handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

3. Reviewer Criteria and Qualifications

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject-matter expertise, research experience, and ability to provide objective and constructive evaluations. To maintain the quality and integrity of the peer-review process, reviewers should meet the following criteria:

1. Hold a doctoral degree or possess equivalent recognized expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript, in accordance with the journal's reviewer appointment policy.

2. Have expertise and research competence in the relevant field, demonstrated through scholarly publications, research activities, or other verifiable academic contributions.

3. Have a relevant publication record, preferably in reputable national or international peer-reviewed journals, in the manuscript's subject area.

4. Demonstrate the ability to critically evaluate research originality, scientific relevance, research design, methodology, data analysis, interpretation of results, and the validity of conclusions.

5. Have no financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other conflicts of interest that could compromise the impartiality of the review.

6. Be willing to maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and review materials and to comply with the journal's publication ethics and reviewer conduct policies.

7. Be able to provide clear, objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments within the prescribed review period.

The editorial team selects reviewers whose expertise is appropriate to the manuscript's topic and methodology. The appointment of reviewers is intended to ensure an independent, fair, and academically sound evaluation of every manuscript.

4. Reviewer Assignment and Review Period

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial assessment is assigned to two or three qualified reviewers by the Editor-in-Chief and/or Section Editors. Reviewer selection considers the manuscript's subject area, research methodology, and the reviewers' relevant expertise.

Reviewers are given one month (30 calendar days) from the date of assignment or acceptance of the review invitation to complete their evaluation and submit their recommendations through the Jurnal Triton Online Journal System (OJS).

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript's originality, relevance, scientific contribution, literature review, methodological appropriateness, validity of results, quality of discussion, and consistency between the research objectives, findings, and conclusions. They must provide constructive comments and recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

If a reviewer cannot complete the review within the prescribed period, the reviewer should inform the editorial office as soon as possible. The Editor-in-Chief may grant an extension or appoint a replacement reviewer to avoid unnecessary delays.

If the reviewers' recommendations differ substantially, particularly when one reviewer recommends rejection and another recommends acceptance, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint an additional reviewer or consult the responsible Section Editor before making the final decision.

5. Editorial Decision and Manuscript Revision

After receiving the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief and/or Section Editors evaluate the recommendations and determine the appropriate editorial decision. The manuscript may be accepted, returned for minor revision, returned for major revision, or rejected.

Authors whose manuscripts require revision are given one week (7 calendar days) from the date the revision request is issued to revise their manuscripts and submit the revised files through OJS. Authors must address the reviewers' and editors' comments systematically and provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. If a comment is not adopted, the authors must provide a clear and scientifically justified explanation.

The revised manuscript is evaluated by the responsible Section Editor to verify whether the required corrections have been adequately implemented. If necessary, the manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment.

Additional revision rounds may be requested when substantial issues remain unresolved. The same one-week revision deadline applies unless an extension is approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Authors who anticipate difficulties meeting the deadline must submit a written extension request before the deadline expires.

Manuscripts that are not revised within the prescribed period, without an approved extension, may be considered withdrawn from the editorial process. The final acceptance decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief and is based on the overall scientific quality of the manuscript, the reviewers' recommendations, and the editorial assessment.

6. Grounds for Manuscript Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected for one or more of the following reasons:

1. Out of scope: The manuscript does not align with the aims and scope of Jurnal Triton.

2. Insufficient scientific quality: The manuscript lacks originality, novelty, scientific contribution, adequate data, appropriate methodology, or sound interpretation of results.

3. Methodological or analytical weaknesses: The research design, data analysis, or interpretation is inadequate to support the stated objectives and conclusions.

4. Publication ethics violations: The manuscript contains plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of research misconduct.

5. Failure to comply with author guidelines: The manuscript does not satisfy the journal's submission requirements or formatting standards and remains non-compliant after editorial instructions.

6. Inadequate revision: The authors fail to address substantive reviewer or editorial comments adequately, fail to provide a reasoned response, or do not submit the revised manuscript within the prescribed deadline without an approved extension.

The Editor-in-Chief informs the corresponding author of the rejection decision and provides the reasons for rejection as appropriate.

7. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe that a rejection decision resulted from a factual error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript, or an unfair assessment may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must clearly state the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant supporting evidence or scientific arguments.

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the appeal in consultation with the responsible Section Editor and, when necessary, other qualified experts. Following this evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief decides whether to uphold or reconsider the original decision. The decision on the appeal is final.

8. Copyediting, Proofreading, and Publication

Following acceptance, the manuscript is forwarded to the technical editor for copyediting, formatting, and layout preparation in accordance with the journal's publication standards.

The page proofs are subsequently sent to the corresponding author for final proofreading. Authors are given three calendar days from the date the proofs are received to check the manuscript carefully and return any necessary corrections to the editorial office.

Proofreading at this stage is intended primarily to identify typographical errors, formatting inconsistencies, and production-related inaccuracies. Substantive changes to the accepted manuscript require prior approval from the Editor-in-Chief.

If the author does not return the corrected proofs within the prescribed period, the editorial team may proceed with publication using the available proof version, subject to the journal's production procedures and any necessary editorial communication.

The Editor-in-Chief informs the corresponding author of the scheduled publication issue and any applicable publication charges in accordance with the journal's official policies.

9. Copyright and Author Agreement

By submitting a manuscript to Jurnal Triton, authors agree to comply with the journal's applicable copyright, licensing, publication ethics, and authorship policies.

Copyright ownership, any copyright transfer or assignment, and the rights retained by authors shall be governed by the journal's officially stated copyright and licensing terms. Authors are responsible for reviewing and agreeing to these terms before publication.

10. Review Process Timeline

The editorial process of Jurnal Triton is conducted through several stages to ensure an efficient, transparent, and accountable publication workflow. Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment and similarity screening to verify its suitability for the journal's aims and scope, compliance with the author guidelines, and adherence to the maximum similarity index of 20%. Manuscripts that pass this stage are assigned to two or three qualified peer reviewers under the double-blind review system. Reviewers are given one month (30 calendar days) from the date of assignment or acceptance of the review invitation to evaluate the manuscript and submit their recommendations through the Online Journal System (OJS).

Following the peer-review process, the Editor-in-Chief and/or Section Editors evaluate the reviewers' recommendations and communicate the editorial decision to the corresponding author. If revisions are required, authors are given one week (7 calendar days) from the date the revision request is issued to revise their manuscripts and submit a point-by-point response to the reviewers' and editors' comments through OJS. The revised manuscript is subsequently assessed by the editorial team and, when necessary, returned to the reviewers for further evaluation. Additional revision rounds may be requested if substantive issues remain unresolved, subject to the same revision deadline unless an extension is approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Once the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copyediting, formatting, and layout preparation. The page proofs are then sent to the corresponding author, who is given three calendar days from receipt to check the proofs and return any necessary corrections. The overall duration from initial submission to final acceptance and publication may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds, and the authors' responsiveness. Any extension of the prescribed deadlines is subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief.