AI in Peer Review

Editing Peer Reviews  ·  Jurnal Civics
The reviewer’s voice, kept intact.
When editors may edit a review, what they never change, and how it is done.
01
Policy
Reviewers’ reports belong to the reviewers, and authors are entitled to see the substance of every review. Editors of Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan edit reports only in the limited cases set out here, following the COPE guidance on editing peer reviews and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Default Reviews are passed to authors as written.
Editing Only to remove what is inappropriate, never to change the reviewer’s assessment.
Applies to Editors handling manuscripts, for all reviews sent to authors.
02
When editors may edit a review
—  To remove offensive, personal, or discriminatory language, or comments about the authors rather than the work.
—  To remove information that could reveal the identity of the reviewer or break the double-anonymous process.
—  To remove confidential comments meant only for the editor that were placed in the comments to authors.
—  To remove unjustified requests to cite the reviewer’s own work or the journal’s work. See Peer Review Manipulation.
—  To remove defamatory or unfounded accusations of misconduct. Real concerns are handled under the Research Misconduct policy, not in the review.
03
What editors never do
—  Change the reviewer’s recommendation or scientific judgement.
—  Add their own comments under the reviewer’s name. The editor’s own comments are given separately in the decision letter.
—  Remove criticism because it is negative, or soften a review to support a decision.
—  Withhold a review that was used in making the decision, unless all of it is inappropriate.
04
How editing is done
1.  The editor reads every review before it is sent to the authors.
2.  Where editing is needed, the editor keeps changes to the minimum and, where practical, tells the reviewer what was changed and why.
3.  If a review is wholly inappropriate or of poor quality, the editor does not use it, and may invite another reviewer.
4.  The original review is kept in the journal system, unchanged.
05
Reviewers’ responsibilities
—  Write objective, specific, and courteous comments about the work, not the authors.
—  Put confidential remarks only in the comments to the editor.
—  Suggest citations only where there is a genuine scholarly reason, and declare it if they are your own work.
—  See the Peer Review Process.
06
Questions
Authors or reviewers with concerns about how a review was handled can write to journalcivics@uny.ac.id. See also the Complaints Policy  ·  Editorial Decisions  ·  Publication Ethics.