Editorial Process

The Roles in Online Journal Management
OJS-based publishing management involves a group of actors with systematically regulated authority. The existence of these roles ensures that each manuscript goes through a multi-layered audit process before reaching the publication stage.

Role	Main Duties and Functions	Main Stages in the Workflow
Editor in Chief (EIC)	Overall supervision of manuscript regulations, strategic policies, and the final quality of the journal.	All stages (Submission to Publication)
Section Editor	Technical management of manuscripts, assignment of reviewers, and mediation of the review process.	Review and Editing
Reviewer	Critical evaluation of scientific substance, methodology, and originality.	Peer Review
Copy Editor	Language editing, consistency of terminology, and syntactic corrections.	Editing (Copyediting)
Layout Editor	Visual formatting of manuscripts into journal templates (PDF).	Production (Layouting)
Proofreader	Final checking for typographical errors and post-layout formatting.	Production (Proofreading)
Production (Proofreading) Author	Manuscript submission, metadata completion, and revision implementation.	Submission and Revision

Editor-in-Chief: Policy and Quality Leader
The Editor-in-Chief holds the highest responsibility in ensuring the sustainability and reputation of the journal. Their main duties include preparing human resources, managing budgets, and ensuring that the journal is published on time according to the predetermined schedule. The EIC is responsible for recruiting members of the Editorial Board who have a strong publication track record and broad institutional diversity. In addition to managerial aspects, the EIC also has the final authority in determining whether a manuscript is worthy of publication based on the accumulated recommendations of section editors and reviewers.

Section Editor: Intellectual Operational Bridge
Section Editors, often referred to as Associate Editors, act as technical managers of manuscripts after assignment from the EIC. This role is crucial because they interact directly with reviewers. Section Editors are tasked with selecting reviewers who have expertise relevant to the topic of the manuscript, monitoring review deadlines, and sending reminders in case of delays. In the OJS system, Section Editors have control over the Review and Editing tabs, ensuring that every revision submitted by authors adequately responds to reviewers' comments.

System Configuration and Editorial Infrastructure Preparation
Before a manuscript can be accepted, the journal manager must make technical settings on the OJS system through the Journal Manager. These settings form the foundation for the editorial workflow that will be carried out by the EIC and Section Editors.

Workflow Settings and Writing Guidelines
Workflow settings begin in the Settings > Workflow menu on the OJS dashboard. This section covers several vital components:

• Author Guidelines: Detailed instructions regarding style, manuscript templates, and citation policies that authors must adhere to.
• Submission Checklist: A series of requirements that authors must check during the submission process to ensure that the manuscript is administratively complete.
• Review Guidance: Guidelines for reviewers on what aspects need to be assessed, from novelty to data integrity.
• Review Forms: Structured assessment forms that make it easier for reviewers to provide evaluations and help editors make decisions.

In addition, metadata settings must be carefully prepared. Metadata is information that will be harvested by indexing engines such as Google Scholar or Scopus. The EIC must ensure that the metadata fields include accurate titles, abstracts, keywords, and reference lists.

Initial Stage: Manuscript Receipt and Screening (Desk Review)
The editorial process officially begins when authors submit their manuscripts through the journal website. Authors are required to register, upload their manuscripts, and complete the article metadata. Once a manuscript is received, the system will assign it an initial status of “Awaiting Assignment.”

Administrative Screening and Substantive Relevance
The EIC or assigned editorial staff will conduct an initial review known as Desk Review or Editorial Triage. This stage aims to screen manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic criteria before sending them to reviewers, in order to save time and resources. The following items are reviewed:

• Scope Suitability: Does the manuscript topic align with the journal's focus?
• Template Compliance: Does the writing format comply with the Author Guidelines?
• Document Completeness: Are the originality statement and other supporting files available?

Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements at this stage may be rejected outright (Desk Rejection) or returned to the author for administrative corrections before further processing.

Audit of Originality and Scientific Integrity
One of the most critical steps in the initial screening is checking for plagiarism using software such as Turnitin or iThenticate. Editors not only look at the total similarity percentage (Similarity Index), but also perform a contextual analysis of the sections detected as similar.

Similarity Percentage	Initial Interpretation	Recommended Editorial Action
< 20%	Low (Green)	Can be processed if the match is only in technical terms or correct citations.
21% - 40%	Moderate (Yellow)	In-depth analysis is required. Often indicates poor paraphrasing.
41% - 70%	High (Orange)	Indicates moderate plagiarism. Manuscripts are usually returned for complete revision or rejected.
> 70%	Very High (Red)	Indicates severe plagiarism or manuscript duplication. Automatic rejection.

Editors must also be alert to attempts to manipulate text, such as the use of hidden characters (white text) or characters from different alphabets to circumvent machine detection. In addition, editors must also check for the use of artificial intelligence similarity tools that have been integrated into Turnitin or iThenticate. The integrity of a journal depends heavily on the editor's ability to detect these unethical practices at an early stage.