Editorial Policy

Peer Review Policy

Peer-reviewed publications are essential for maintaining the quality, credibility, and advancement of scholarly research. Kertas of Automation and Robotics Science (KARS) adheres to a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure that all published work meets high standards of academic integrity and relevance.

Review Model: Single-Blind Review

KARS employs a single-blind peer review process, where the reviewers’ identities are kept confidential, but the authors’ identities are known to the reviewers.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Section Editors to determine their suitability based on:

Alignment with the scope and themes of KARS
Originality and technical novelty
Adherence to submission and formatting guidelines

Manuscripts that pass this initial check proceed to the formal peer-review stage.

Peer Review Process

Each manuscript is typically evaluated by at least two independent experts selected based on their technical expertise and familiarity with the manuscript’s subject matter.

Reviewers assess the manuscript using the following criteria:

Originality: Novelty and uniqueness of the contribution
Significance: Scientific relevance and justified conclusions
Structure and Format: Consistency with KARS author guidelines
Relevance: Value to the journal’s audience in automation and robotics
Language Quality: Clarity and academic tone
Overall Merit: Methodological soundness and contribution to the field

The Editor-in-Chief holds the final responsibility for the publication decision. Editors will recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where a conflict of interest exists (e.g., co-authorship, personal relationships, institutional ties, or financial interests). Such cases will be reassigned to an unbiased editor.

Review Outcomes

After peer review, the Editor-in-Chief may render one of the following decisions:

Accept as is – No revisions required (rare)
Accept with minor revisions – Small corrections or improvements requested
Accept after major revisions – Substantial updates needed (e.g., methods, data analysis, clarity)
Revise and resubmit – Consideration in a future review round following significant improvement
Reject – Manuscript declined due to serious flaws, lack of novelty, or misalignment with journal scope

Reviewer comments may be edited by the editorial office to ensure clarity and professionalism. Confidential remarks intended for editors are not shared with authors.

Editorial Discretion and Ethics

Members of the Editorial Board may serve as reviewers when appropriate and free from conflicts of interest.
The Editor-in-Chief may seek additional reviews or external expert input when necessary.
Final decisions are based on reviewer evaluations, author revisions, and the manuscript’s overall contribution to the field of automation and robotics.