Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process and Publication Workflow

The Jurnal Pemerintahan dan Politik applies a single-blind peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance of manuscripts submitted for publication. In the single-blind review process, the identity of the authors is disclosed to the reviewers, while the identity of the reviewers is kept confidential from the authors.

The editorial and peer-review workflow is conducted through the following stages:

1. Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS). The Editorial Team conducts an initial check of the submission within a maximum of 7 days.

The initial check covers:

  • conformity with the journal's focus and scope;

  • compliance with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript template;

  • completeness of the manuscript and submission requirements;

  • basic academic and methodological quality;

  • originality and potential plagiarism or excessive similarity; and

  • compliance with publication ethics.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or are outside the journal's scope may be rejected at the editorial screening stage (desk rejection) without being sent for external peer review.

Authors may be contacted by the Editorial Team if clarification or additional information is required.

2. Pre-Review Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening undergo an editorial assessment to determine their eligibility for peer review. Where revisions or clarifications are required before external review, the authors will be given a maximum of 7 days to respond or make the required corrections.

Only manuscripts considered eligible for external peer review will proceed to the next stage.

3. Peer Review

Eligible manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

The journal uses a single-blind peer-review system:

  • the authors' identities are known to the reviewers;

  • the reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors;

  • reviewer comments and recommendations are communicated through the OJS editorial system; and

  • reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively. The review may consider the following aspects:

  1. originality and novelty;

  2. relevance and significance of the research;

  3. clarity of the research problem, objectives, and research questions;

  4. adequacy and relevance of the literature review;

  5. theoretical or conceptual framework;

  6. appropriateness of the research methodology;

  7. quality and validity of data and analysis;

  8. coherence between findings, discussion, and conclusions;

  9. contribution to the development of government and political studies;

  10. quality and relevance of references; and

  11. compliance with research and publication ethics.

Reviewers are expected to submit their review reports within a maximum of 7 days, subject to their availability and acceptance of the review invitation.

4. Reviewer's Recommendation

Following the review, reviewers provide comments and recommendations to the editor. The possible recommendations include:

  • Accept Submission;

  • Minor Revision / Revisions Required;

  • Major Revision / Resubmit for Review; or

  • Decline Submission.

Reviewer recommendations serve as an important basis for the editorial decision but do not automatically determine the final publication decision. The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor based on the overall quality of the manuscript, reviewer evaluations, journal standards, and editorial considerations.

5. Revisions

If revisions are required, authors will be given a maximum of 7 days to revise their manuscript, unless the Editor grants an extension for justified reasons.

Authors are expected to address the reviewers' comments carefully and provide a clear response to each substantive comment. Where necessary, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

The number of revision rounds may vary depending on the extent of revisions required and the editorial assessment.

6. Final Editorial Decision

After the revised manuscript has been submitted, the Editor will make a final editorial decision within a maximum of 7 days, subject to the completeness of the revision and the availability of the necessary editorial assessments.

The editorial decision may be:

  • Accepted – the manuscript is accepted for publication;

  • Revision Required – further revisions are required before acceptance; or

  • Rejected – the manuscript does not meet the journal's academic or editorial requirements.

A manuscript may only proceed to publication after all required academic, editorial, and administrative requirements have been completed.

7. Payment and Letter of Acceptance (LoA)

For manuscripts that have received an editorial decision of Accepted, the Letter of Acceptance (LoA) will be issued after the authors have completed the required publication payment, where applicable, and all outstanding editorial and administrative requirements.

Payment does not determine the academic acceptance of a manuscript. The decision to accept or reject a manuscript is based on the editorial and peer-review process.

The LoA confirms the journal's formal acceptance of the manuscript for publication. The publication of the accepted manuscript remains subject to the journal's production schedule and completion of the subsequent editorial stages.

8. Estimated Processing Time

The estimated duration of the complete editorial and peer-review process is approximately 1–2 months. This estimate includes editorial screening, reviewer assignment, peer review, revision, and final editorial decision.

The stated processing times are target timeframes rather than guarantees and may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the extent of revisions required, and the responsiveness of authors.

9. No Fast-Track Review

Jurnal Pemerintahan dan Politik does not provide a fast-track review mechanism or expedited Letter of Acceptance (LoA) issuance.

All manuscripts are processed according to the same editorial and peer-review procedures. Requests for accelerated review or expedited LoA issuance will not alter the standard review procedure or editorial decision-making process.

10. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all information contained in the manuscript and may not use, reproduce, distribute, or disclose unpublished material for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers must also disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their evaluation. Reviewers who have a conflict of interest may be asked to decline the review assignment.

The Editorial Team is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of reviewer identities and ensuring that the peer-review process is conducted fairly and independently.

11. Editorial Independence and Publication Ethics

Editorial decisions are made based on the manuscript's academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and conformity with the journal's standards.

The journal does not discriminate against authors based on institutional affiliation, academic position, nationality, gender, religion, or other non-academic characteristics.

The journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript or discontinue its publication process if evidence of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, or other violations of publication ethics are identified.