All submitted papers are reviewed using the double-blind peer review process through which advice is asked on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers,

The articles submitted to SEMAR  will be processed through a formatting review by the editor and independently reviewed by two peer reviewers. The review process applies Double Blind method. Decisions from reviewers are a top priority for editors to make decisions. The time required by reviewers to complete a round review process is three weeks. Generally, prospective reviewers will be selected based on their reputation in the suitability of their expertise. The decision for publication, amendment, or rejection is based on their reports/recommendation. After being reviewed, there will be four kinds of editor decision based on reviewers’ recommendation:

> Accept Submission: The submission will be accepted without revisions.
> Revisions Required: The submission will be accepted after minor changes have been made.
> Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be re-worked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. It will require a second round of review, however.
> Decline Submission: The submission will not be published in the journal.

Editor applies a plagiarism scanning with Turnitin and Google Scholar before the article is subjected to a substantial review process

. All author names and affiliations are removed before sending the paper out for review. On submission, an article receives a manuscript number. This number should be quoted in all correspondence relating to the article.

New submissions are sent to two independent, anonymous reviewers, selected by the Editor-in-Chief who may be assisted by the appropriate Editorial Board. The recommendations of the reviewers are sent to the authors by the Editor-in-Chief who is responsible for the objectivity of the judgements and findings of the reviews. Revised articles should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief. When an article has been accepted, the Editor-in-Chief will inform the author(s) in which issue the paper will be published.

Reviewers have the following responsibilities:

• Reviewers assists the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and in improving the manuscript;
• Reviewers who feel unqualified to provide a scientifically correct review in the amount of time given should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted;
• Reviewers treat all manuscripts as confidential documents;
• Reviewers must report the Editor-in-Chief if they are aware of any copyright infringement and plagiarism;
• Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments;
• Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.