Peer Review Process

Jurnal Kebijakan Publik dan Pembangunan Daerah maintains the standards of double-blind peer review while ensuring an efficient review process. All research articles published in Jurnal Kebijakan Publik dan Pembangunan Daerah undergo a full peer-review process. The key characteristics of the process are as follows:

  1. Jurnal Kebijakan Publik dan Pembangunan Daerah applies a two-stage process. After the technical check, the submission will first be reviewed by the editorial team to determine its suitability for publication in the journal. If the manuscript is considered suitable, it will be assigned to an editor who will manage the review and decision-making process.
  2. If the manuscript matches the journal's scope and satisfies the criteria of Jurnal Kebijakan Publik dan Pembangunan Daerah, the manuscript will be assigned to an Editor. The Editor will identify and invite reviewers who have relevant expertise in the field. Since peer review is a voluntary academic service, the process may take some time. However, the Editor will regularly follow up with reviewers when responses are not received within the expected period. During this stage, the manuscript status will appear as "Under Review".
  3. Once the Editor has received the required number of expert reviews, the status may change to "Required Reviews Complete".
  4. The Editor may also determine that the manuscript does not meet the journal's criteria or scope and should not proceed to further review. In such cases, the author will be notified that the manuscript has been rejected.

Peer Review of Submitted Manuscripts

The Editors of Jurnal Kebijakan Publik dan Pembangunan Daerah will decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions to submitted manuscripts based on the reviewers' evaluations and editorial considerations. Editors may request additional reviews when necessary. Authors will be informed if further review is required.

Submitted manuscripts will first be evaluated by the Editor to assess their relevance to the journal's scope, topic, academic quality, and compliance with the journal's writing guidelines. All manuscripts are subject to double-blind peer review, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process in order to maintain objectivity and academic standards.

In short, the steps are:

  1. Manuscript Submission (by the author).
  2. Manuscript Check and Selection (by the journal manager and editors).
  3. The Editors have the authority to proceed with review, reject the manuscript, or make an editorial decision as appropriate. Prior to further processing, each manuscript is subject to a plagiarism check using Turnitin.
  4. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers).
  5. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by the Editor to the author based on reviewers' comments and editorial considerations).
  6. Paper Revision (by the author).
  7. Submission of the Revised Manuscript based on reviewers' suggestions (by the author), followed by further editorial or review processes as necessary.
  8. If the reviewers and Editor are satisfied with the revision, the author will receive a notification of acceptance.
  9. Galley Proof and Publication Process.

Steps 1 to 5 are considered one round of the peer-review process. The Editor or Editorial Board considers the feedback provided by peer reviewers before reaching an editorial decision. The most common decisions are:

  1. Accepted: The manuscript is accepted in its current form and will proceed to the publication process.
  2. Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication, subject to minor corrections that must be completed by the author within the specified period.
  3. Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript may be accepted for publication provided that the authors make substantial changes based on the recommendations of the reviewers and/or Editors within the specified period.
  4. Resubmit: This constitutes a conditional rejection. The journal is willing to reconsider the manuscript in another round of evaluation after the authors make substantial revisions.
  5. Rejected: The manuscript will not be published in the journal and will not be reconsidered in its current submission process.

Peer Review Flowchart

%%{init: {
  "flowchart": {
    "nodeSpacing": 15,
    "rankSpacing": 22,
    "padding": 5,
    "curve": "linear"
  },
  "themeVariables": {
    "fontSize": "10px"
  }
}}%%

flowchart TD

    A(["START"]) --> B["Manuscript Submission"]
    B --> C["Technical and Editorial Screening"]
    C --> D["Plagiarism Check using Turnitin"]

    D --> E{"Suitable for Peer Review?"}

    E -->|No| X["Rejected"]
    E -->|Yes| F["Editor Assignment and Reviewer Invitation"]

    F --> G["Double-Blind Peer Review"]
    G --> H["Editorial Evaluation"]
    H --> I{"Editorial Decision"}

    I -->|Accepted| J["Accepted"]
    I -->|Minor / Major Revision| K["Author Revision"]
    I -->|Resubmit| L["Substantial Revision and Resubmission"]
    I -->|Rejected| X

    K --> M["Assessment of Revised Manuscript"]
    L --> M

    M --> N{"Final Decision"}

    N -->|Accepted| J
    N -->|Further Revision| O["Additional Revision"]
    N -->|Rejected| X

    O --> P["Final Editorial Assessment"]
    P --> Q{"Accepted?"}

    Q -->|Yes| J
    Q -->|No| X

    J --> R["Galley Proof and Production"]
    R --> S["Publication"]
    S --> T(["END"])
    X --> U(["END"])

    classDef startEnd fill:#1e3a5f,color:#ffffff,stroke:#1e3a5f,stroke-width:2px
    classDef process fill:#ffffff,color:#1e3a5f,stroke:#1e3a5f,stroke-width:1px
    classDef decision fill:#fff7ed,color:#1e3a5f,stroke:#FF9200,stroke-width:2px
    classDef success fill:#eef6f0,color:#1e3a5f,stroke:#5b8f66,stroke-width:1px
    classDef reject fill:#f8eeee,color:#1e3a5f,stroke:#a35d5d,stroke-width:1px

    class A,T,U startEnd
    class B,C,D,F,G,H,K,L,M,O,P,R,S process
    class E,I,N,Q decision
    class J success
    class X reject