Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Scientific Contributions for Oil and Gas is the official journal of the Research and Development Center for Oil and Gas Technology (LEMIGAS) for the dissemination of information on research activities, technology engineering development and laboratory testing in the oil and gas field. Manuscripts in English are accepted from all in any institutions, college and industry oil and gas throughout the country and overseas. All papers are peer-reviewed by at least two referees


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process


Reviewers play a very important role and are required to be honest, objective, unbiased, independent, and only in favor of scientific truth. Reviewers must be critical in assessing the contents of the manuscript in accordance with their field of expertise, open about new things, keep secret the thing being assessed, and do not take personal advantage of the manuscript being assessed and have the spirit to improve the manuscript he reviewed. The reviewer has the task of assisting the Editor in determining the manuscript that can be published and helping the Author to improve the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers are required to uphold basic principles and scientific analysis in conducting the review process of a text. Reviewers must check the accuracy and correctness of data sources and references / citations / citations, the accuracy of the concept, the objectivity of the contents of the text, and carry out a neutral review.


A.  Before Review

Before the reviewer accepts or rejects the invitation to study the manuscript, consider the following questions:

1) Is the script received in accordance with the reviewer's area of expertise? Accept if reviewers feel they can provide high-quality review.

2) Does the reviewer have a potential conflict of interest? Say this to the Editor when the reviewer responds.

3) Does the reviewer have time? Before the reviewer is committed, make sure the reviewer can meet the deadline.

Invite responses as soon as possible (even if declined). Delaying responses can slow down the review process, which means the author will wait more. If the reviewer declines the invitation, it is helpful to provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.


B.  Managing Review

Confidential material

If accepted, the reviewer must treat the text received as a confidential document. This means the reviewer cannot disseminate with anyone without permission. Because peer-review is confidential, reviewers may not share information about the results of their review with anyone without permission from the Editor and Writer.



If the manuscript reviewed reports about the experiment, check the method section first. The following cases are considered as major defects and should be marked:

• Unsound methodology;

• Discredited method;

• The missing process is known to affect the area of research reported;

• Conclusions drawn are contrary to statistical or qualitative evidence.

For analytic / numeric / statistical texts, check the sampling technique according to the given time mandate. For qualitative research make sure that systematic data analysis has been presented and descriptive elements are adequate according to citation / citation evidence.


Research data and visualizations

After making sure that the methodology is strong enough, check any data in the form of numbers, tables, or figures. Authors are allowed to add research data, including data visualization so that readers can interact and engage more closely with research (e.g., appendix).


Ethical considerations

If the guide for authors requires ethical approval, laboratory experiments including research data must be well documented.


If the reviewer does not find a big mistake, you should stop for a moment and take time to think. Consider studying the manuscript from your own point of view. When compiling the results of the review, make sure the reviewer is familiar with the script writing guidelines for the Author (guide for authors).


C. Structuring Review

The reviewer review will assist the Editor in deciding whether or not the manuscript can be published, including helping the Writers to improve and improve the quality of their manuscripts. Commenting on the text in the form of criticism, suggestions, input, and recommendations is very important, but it should be polite and constructive. In submitting comments, it is not permissible to include personal identities including the name of the reviewer.


Providing insight into any shortcomings is important. Reviewers must explain and support their assessment so that the Editor and Writer can fully understand the reasons behind the review given. Reviewers must indicate whether the review is their own opinion or is reflected based on data and evidence.


Reviewer recommendation

In making recommendations, use the category from Editor to classify the text:

• Reject.

Explain in the results

• Accept without revision

• Revision - Major or Minor

If recommending a revision, the reviewer must provide a clear and reasonable explanation to the author as to why the revision is needed.


Final decision

The editor will decide whether to accept or reject the script. The publisher has no role in this decision. The editor considers the entire review and can ask for other opinions or ask the author to revise the text before making a decision. The editor sends the reviewer a notification about the final decision.


D. After Reviewing

After the reviewer completes his task, all manuscripts, files or data controlled must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are not permitted to disseminate or submit information about the results of their review with anyone without permission from the Editor.


Publication Frequency

Scientific Contributions Oil & Gas (SCOG) is published 3 times a year in April, August, and December.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.