IRPI Editorial Process

MALCOM IRPI operates a rigorous peer-review process. In most cases this is a single-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/ rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editors and special issue topics, and new Editorial Board members.

A summary of the editorial process is given in the flowchart below. The following provides notes on each step.


Immediately after submission, this check is initially carried out by the Editor-in-chief editor to assess:

  • Suitability of the manuscript to the journal/ section/ special issue;
  • Qualification and background of authors;
  • Reject obviously poor manuscripts.

The Section editor, will be notified of the submission and invited to check and recommend reviewers.

Peer-to-Peer Review

All articles submitted to Indonesian Journal of Machine Learning and Computer Science (MALCOM) will be reviewed in double-blind review method. Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers (double-blind review method). In general, each article will be reviewed by one to two people reviews.

The response of the reviewers will be the basis for the Editor to conclude

  1. Revisions Required
  2. Accept Submission
  3. Decline Submission

An article was rejected for publication due to various considerations, including:

  1. The article does not fit the scope
  2. The article does not follow the rules of writing scientific papers / do not follow the guidelines authors
  3. The fundamental methodological errors
  4. The author refuses to make suggestions of improvements provided by the reviewer without a logical basis.
  5. There are indications of plagiarism of more than 15%

Editor Decision

Acceptance decisions on manuscripts, after peer review, are made by an Editor, either an Editor-in-Chief, a Section Editor, or another suitable Editorial Board member. When making an editorial decision, we expect that the Editor-in-chieft checks the following:

    The suitability of selected reviewers;

    Adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;

    Overall scientific quality of the paper.

The editor can select from: accept, reject, ask author for revision, ask for an additional reviewer.

If there is any suspicion that a paper may contain plagiarism, the editorial officer will check using the turnitin software.

Reviewers make recommendations, and Editors-in-Chief are free to disagree with their views. If they do so, they should justify their decision, for the benefit of the authors.

Editorial independence is extremely important and IRPI does not interfere with editorial decisions of MALCOM. In particular, no paper is published without the agreement of an editor-in-chief.

Figure. Editorial Process


In cases where only minor revisions are recommended, the author is usually requested to revise the paper before referring to the copyediting. Articles may or may not be sent to reviewers after author revision, dependent on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version. Apart from in exceptional circumstances, we allow a maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript. if you want to see review proses click here


MALCOM IRPI carries out production on all manuscripts, including language editing if needed, copy editing and conversion to XML. Language editing is carried out by professional English editing staff. In the small number of cases where extensive editing or formatting is required, we charge authors an additional fee (with authors’ prior approval). The authors are also free to use other English editing service, or consult a native English-speaking colleague—the latter being our preferred option.