Air Quality and Climate Change Management

The Chief Editor makes the decision to accept or reject an article through the Editor's Board based on the reviewers' recommendations or comments. Texts submitted to this journal are checked for plagiarism using the Google Scholar or Turnitin apps. The more plagiarism there is, the sooner the article will be rejected (if more than 20 percent does not include a bibliography). All articles in AQC2M Journal will be published in both English and Indonesian. 

All submissions to this journal must be written in either English or Indonesian. All authors are encouraged to have their papers proofread for grammar and clarity before submitting them. The final decision on manuscript acceptance is made solely by the Editor in Chief and Associate Editor based on the critical comments of the reviewers. The final decision on the manuscript is solely based on the Editor's final review, which takes into account the comments of the peer-reviewers (but not solely by Reviewer).

2. Spesific Overview of Peer-Review Process

Reviewers will be asked to provide detailed and constructive comments, which will be used as the basis for editors to decide whether to reject or accept submitted articles. The following items require the reviewer's attention:

a. Originality and significance

Reviewers are asked to discuss the originality of the findings submitted in an article. In addition, reviewers should consider whether the findings have the potential to significantly influence the scientific community. If the reviewer discovers the same work as the article being reviewed, the reviewer can offer suggestions or criticism to improve the way the research results are presented.

b. The novelness of the theoretical approach and how to discuss the issues

Reviewers are asked to discuss the novelty of the theoretical approach as well as how the authors discuss research findings to solve problems. This novelty element is usually found in the introduction section as an introduction to the importance of the research.

c. The method's advantages and disadvantages

Reviewers must be able to evaluate the method used. In order to improve the quality of the article under review, statistical analysis or other analytical methods that affect the interpretation of results should be criticized.

d. The dependability of the appearance of research findings and conclusions

Reviewers must be able to assess the dependability of the research findings and conclusions. The completeness of the analysis and the data obtained can be used to assess the reliability.

e. Alignment of the layout with the guidelines
Alignment with the guidelines will make the editing and layout process easier for editors. Many writers disregard this and only format their writing partially and perfectly according to the guidelines provided. This can be evaluated by reviewers, but the main focus is on the content and some previous points.

f. Suggestions and comments

When several errors or shortcomings are discovered in an article, the reviewer is expected to be able to clearly show which parts should be improved and what needs to be done to improve the article's quality.

3. Maintaining Confidentiality

We ask that no articles or research results be disseminated while under review. If you are unwilling to maintain this policy, we would appreciate it if you would refer other prospective reviewers to the editorial board who are more suitable in terms of interest or expertise.

4. Additional Technical Issues
Reviewers are expected to return articles on which they have commented before the deadline. If you require additional time to complete the review, the reviewer is expected to contact the editorial board right away. The review results can be submitted online through our OJS. However, if you have difficulty returning the results of the review, the results can be sent via email: