How authors revise articles based on reviewer comments

JPPMI | FOR AUTHORS

Manuscript Revision Guidelines

Instructions for revising manuscripts and preparing point-by-point responses to editorial and reviewer comments.

Guidance for Revised Manuscripts

Jurnal Pengabdian dan Pengembangan Masyarakat Indonesia (JPPMI) requires authors to prepare revisions systematically and provide clear responses to all editorial and reviewer comments.

The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure that requested revisions can be identified, assessed, and verified efficiently without compromising the quality and integrity of the manuscript.

Authors must submit a revised manuscript and a separate point-by-point response document. Both files must accurately reflect the revisions undertaken.

Essential Revision Requirements

Revised Manuscript All added or modified text must be marked using red font.
Response to Reviewers Every editor and reviewer comment must be reproduced and answered individually.
Submission Both files must be uploaded through OJS within the deadline stated in the editorial decision.

English Version

Instructions for Preparing and Submitting Revised Manuscripts

1. Mark All Changes in Red Font

Authors must mark every added, modified, corrected, or rewritten passage using red font in the revised manuscript.

  • Use red font for newly added sentences and paragraphs.
  • Use red font for modified phrases and rewritten text.
  • Mark changes in tables, figure captions, and table notes.
  • Mark revisions to citations and reference entries.
  • Mark changes to acknowledgments and publication declarations.
  • Keep unchanged text in its original font color.
  • Do not rely solely on highlighting, comments, or Track Changes.

Example of Revision Marking

ORIGINAL TEXT

The training program improved participants' knowledge.

REVISED TEXT

The training program improved participants' knowledge. The mean knowledge score increased from 62.4 before the intervention to 78.6 after the training.

This example uses illustrative data only. Authors must report their actual study or program results.

2. Respond to Every Editor and Reviewer Comment

Prepare a separate Response to Reviewers document containing all comments from the handling editor and every reviewer.

  1. Reproduce the complete original comment without deleting or shortening its meaning.
  2. Maintain the original order of editorial and reviewer comments.
  3. Number all comments consistently.
  4. Provide an individual response immediately below each comment.
  5. Explain what was revised and why.
  6. Quote the exact revised sentence or paragraph.
  7. Identify the page, section, paragraph, table, figure, or line where the change appears.
  8. If no change is made, explain the reason respectfully and support it with appropriate evidence when relevant.

Authors should distinguish between comments requiring changes to the manuscript and comments that can be answered through clarification alone.

3. Recommended Point-by-Point Response Format

Authors are encouraged to use the following response structure for each comment.

Reviewer 1 — Comment 1

[Reproduce the complete reviewer comment here.]

Author Response

Thank you for this constructive comment. We have revised the Methods section to clarify the evaluation procedures and the indicators used to assess program outcomes.

Revised Text

"Participants' knowledge was assessed before and immediately after training using an identical 15-item questionnaire. The total score was calculated as the percentage of correct answers."

Location

Page 5, Methods, paragraph 3, lines 112–116.

The response is illustrative. Replace the sample content and location with actual revisions from the manuscript.

4. When Authors Disagree with a Reviewer

Authors may respectfully disagree with a reviewer comment when there is a sound scientific, methodological, ethical, or contextual justification.

A disagreement should explain the rationale clearly and, where relevant, provide supporting evidence or appropriate references.

SUGGESTED RESPONSE

"We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. After reconsidering the study design, we respectfully maintain the current analytical approach because [specific methodological reason]. We have added a clarification to the Methods section and acknowledged the relevant limitation in the Discussion."

Simply stating that a comment is not applicable or that the authors disagree, without explanation, is insufficient.

5. Check Consistency Before Resubmission

Revisions should resolve the requested issue without introducing inconsistencies elsewhere in the manuscript.

  • Check consistency between objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
  • Ensure that revised numerical values agree across the abstract, text, tables, and figures.
  • Verify the accuracy and traceability of any newly added references.
  • Check that the manuscript does not introduce unsupported claims.
  • Review ethics, funding, author contributions, data availability, and AI-use declarations where changes are relevant.
  • Ensure that the revised manuscript and point-by-point responses agree.
  • Maintain the anonymized review format required by JPPMI.

6. File Preparation and Naming

Authors must prepare at least the following two files:

File Suggested Filename
Revised Manuscript ManuscriptID_Revised.docx
Response to Reviewers ManuscriptID_Response.docx

Replace "ManuscriptID" with the actual submission identification number. Additional files should be supplied when specifically requested by the editor.

Files must be editable, clearly labeled, and free of unnecessary author-identifying information in materials intended for anonymous peer review.

7. Uploading Revisions Through OJS

  1. Sign in to the JPPMI OJS account used for submission.
  2. Open the relevant manuscript from the author dashboard.
  3. Locate the active review or revision stage.
  4. Read the editorial decision and any remaining instructions.
  5. Upload the revised manuscript with changes shown in red.
  6. Upload the separate point-by-point response document.
  7. Upload any additional files requested by the editor.
  8. Complete the available revision submission steps and verify that the files appear in the submission record.

Submit the revision before the deadline stated in the editorial decision. If additional time is needed, request an extension before the deadline and explain the reason.

A revision request does not guarantee acceptance. The editor may request further revisions or additional assessment after examining the resubmitted material.

Versi Bahasa Indonesia

Panduan Penyusunan dan Pengunggahan Revisi Manuskrip

1. Tandai Seluruh Perubahan dengan Huruf Merah

Penulis wajib memberikan warna huruf merah pada seluruh teks yang ditambahkan, diperbaiki, ditulis ulang, atau diubah dalam naskah revisi.

  • Gunakan huruf merah untuk kalimat atau paragraf baru.
  • Gunakan huruf merah untuk frasa dan kalimat yang diubah.
  • Tandai perubahan pada tabel, keterangan gambar, dan catatan tabel.
  • Tandai perubahan sitasi dan daftar pustaka.
  • Tandai perbaikan pada ucapan terima kasih dan deklarasi publikasi.
  • Pertahankan warna normal untuk teks yang tidak berubah.
  • Jangan hanya mengandalkan highlight, komentar, atau fitur Track Changes.

TEKS SEBELUM REVISI

Pelatihan meningkatkan pengetahuan peserta.

TEKS SETELAH REVISI

Pelatihan meningkatkan pengetahuan peserta. Rata-rata skor pengetahuan meningkat dari 62,4 sebelum intervensi menjadi 78,6 setelah pelatihan.

Angka tersebut hanya contoh. Penulis wajib menggunakan data sebenarnya dari kegiatan yang dilaporkan.

2. Jawab Seluruh Komentar Editor dan Reviewer

Penulis wajib menyiapkan dokumen Response to Reviewers yang memuat seluruh komentar editor dan reviewer secara lengkap.

  1. Salin seluruh komentar sesuai dengan isi aslinya.
  2. Pertahankan urutan komentar sebagaimana diterima.
  3. Berikan nomor secara konsisten.
  4. Tuliskan respons khusus untuk setiap komentar.
  5. Jelaskan perubahan yang dilakukan dan alasannya.
  6. Cantumkan kutipan teks hasil perbaikan.
  7. Nyatakan lokasi perbaikan dalam naskah.
  8. Jika komentar tidak diikuti dengan perubahan, berikan alasan yang jelas, sopan, dan berbasis bukti.

Pernyataan umum seperti "sudah diperbaiki" tanpa penjelasan dan lokasi perubahan tidak dianggap sebagai respons yang memadai.

3. Contoh Format Respons terhadap Reviewer

Reviewer 1 — Komentar 1

[Salin komentar reviewer secara lengkap.]

Respons Penulis

Terima kasih atas masukan yang diberikan. Kami telah memperbaiki bagian Metode dengan menjelaskan prosedur evaluasi dan indikator yang digunakan untuk menilai hasil kegiatan.

Teks Hasil Revisi

"Pengetahuan peserta diukur sebelum dan segera setelah pelatihan menggunakan kuesioner yang sama, terdiri atas 15 pertanyaan. Skor total dihitung berdasarkan persentase jawaban benar."

Lokasi Revisi

Halaman 5, Metode, paragraf 3, baris 112–116.

Contoh tersebut bersifat ilustratif. Sesuaikan komentar, respons, teks, dan lokasi dengan naskah yang sebenarnya.

4. Jika Tidak Sependapat dengan Reviewer

Penulis dapat menyampaikan ketidaksetujuan secara profesional apabila memiliki alasan ilmiah, metodologis, etis, atau kontekstual yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan.

Setiap perbedaan pendapat sebaiknya disertai penjelasan yang spesifik, serta bukti atau referensi yang relevan apabila diperlukan.

CONTOH RESPONS

"Terima kasih atas saran reviewer. Setelah mempertimbangkan kembali desain kegiatan dan metode evaluasi, kami tetap menggunakan pendekatan tersebut karena [alasan metodologis yang spesifik]. Sebagai tindak lanjut, kami telah menambahkan penjelasan pada bagian Metode dan mencantumkan keterbatasannya dalam Pembahasan."

5. Periksa Kembali Konsistensi Naskah

Sebelum naskah revisi dikirimkan, periksa kembali konsistensi seluruh komponennya.

  • Tujuan, metode, hasil, dan kesimpulan harus saling sesuai.
  • Data dalam abstrak, teks, tabel, dan gambar harus konsisten.
  • Referensi baru harus benar, relevan, dan dapat ditelusuri.
  • Interpretasi harus didukung oleh data yang tersedia.
  • Perubahan yang memengaruhi deklarasi etik, pendanaan, kontribusi penulis, ketersediaan data, atau penggunaan AI harus diikuti dengan pembaruan yang sesuai.
  • Dokumen respons dan naskah revisi harus memuat perubahan yang sama.
  • Anonimitas penulis harus tetap dijaga dalam dokumen untuk reviewer.

6. Penyiapan dan Penamaan Berkas

Penulis menyiapkan dua berkas utama menggunakan format Microsoft Word yang dapat diedit.

Berkas Nama Berkas yang Disarankan
Naskah Revisi ManuscriptID_Revised.docx
Respons terhadap Reviewer ManuscriptID_Response.docx

Ganti "ManuscriptID" dengan nomor identifikasi manuskrip. Berkas tambahan diunggah apabila diminta oleh editor.

7. Mengunggah Revisi Melalui OJS

  1. Masuk ke akun OJS JPPMI yang digunakan saat mengirim manuskrip.
  2. Pilih manuskrip yang akan direvisi pada dashboard penulis.
  3. Buka tahap Review atau bagian pengunggahan revisi yang tersedia.
  4. Baca kembali seluruh keputusan dan instruksi editor.
  5. Unggah naskah revisi dengan seluruh perubahan berwarna merah.
  6. Unggah dokumen Response to Reviewers secara terpisah.
  7. Unggah berkas tambahan apabila diminta.
  8. Periksa kembali bahwa seluruh berkas tercatat pada sistem.

Unggah seluruh revisi sebelum batas waktu dalam surat keputusan editorial. Jika memerlukan tambahan waktu, ajukan permohonan perpanjangan sebelum tenggat berakhir.

Pengiriman revisi tidak otomatis menjamin penerimaan artikel. Editor dapat meminta perbaikan lanjutan apabila masih ditemukan persoalan substansi, pelaporan, atau kesesuaian dengan ketentuan jurnal.

Revision Submission Checklist / Daftar Periksa Revisi

Complete this checklist before uploading the revision. Periksa seluruh butir berikut sebelum mengunggah revisi.

☐ All added and modified text is shown in red. / Seluruh perubahan ditandai dengan huruf merah.

☐ Every editor and reviewer comment is reproduced in full. / Seluruh komentar disalin secara lengkap.

☐ Every comment has a specific author response. / Setiap komentar memiliki respons khusus.

☐ Exact revised passages are quoted in the response file. / Teks hasil perbaikan dicantumkan dalam dokumen respons.

☐ Page, paragraph, section, or line locations are stated. / Lokasi revisi disebutkan dengan jelas.

☐ Revised methods and results remain consistent. / Metode dan hasil tetap konsisten.

☐ Tables, figures, citations, and references have been checked. / Tabel, gambar, sitasi, dan referensi telah diperiksa.

☐ Required declarations have been checked and updated if necessary. / Deklarasi publikasi telah diperiksa dan diperbarui bila diperlukan.

☐ The revision files remain appropriately anonymized. / Berkas untuk reviewer tetap dianonimkan.

☐ All required files have been uploaded before the deadline. / Seluruh berkas telah diunggah sebelum tenggat.

Final Reminder / Pengingat Akhir

Clear revision marking and comprehensive point-by-point responses allow editors and reviewers to assess changes efficiently and accurately. Authors remain responsible for the correctness, consistency, and integrity of the revised manuscript.

Penandaan perubahan yang jelas dan respons terperinci terhadap setiap komentar akan mempermudah editor dan reviewer melakukan pemeriksaan ulang. Penulis tetap bertanggung jawab atas ketepatan, konsistensi, dan integritas ilmiah naskah revisi.