Peer Review Process

Jurnal Inovasi Administrasi Negara Terapan (Inovant) applies a double-anonymized peer-review process to manuscripts processed under the journal's current editorial policy. The identities of the authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from the authors.

All submissions are managed through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The peer-review process consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team to determine whether it is suitable for further review.

The initial screening considers:

  • relevance to the Focus and Scope of Inovant;
  • completeness of the submission and metadata;
  • compliance with the journal's Article Template and Author Guidelines;
  • originality and initial scholarly quality;
  • clarity and readability of the manuscript;
  • adequacy of the research problem and methodological approach;
  • compliance with research and publication ethics; and
  • similarity screening using Turnitin.

The similarity report is used as an editorial screening tool and is not treated as the sole indicator of plagiarism.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, seriously inconsistent with journal requirements, or do not meet the minimum scholarly standard may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection is based on:

  • subject expertise;
  • scholarly competence;
  • absence of relevant conflicts of interest; and
  • ability to provide an objective and timely review.

For manuscripts authored by members of Universitas Negeri Surabaya, the journal prioritizes the use of reviewers from outside Universitas Negeri Surabaya to strengthen the independence of the review process.

3. Double-Anonymized Peer Review

Inovant applies a double-anonymized review system.

Under this system:

  • reviewers do not receive information identifying the authors; and
  • authors do not receive information identifying the reviewers.

Authors are therefore responsible for preparing the manuscript in accordance with the journal's anonymization requirements before peer review.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its scholarly quality and contribution.

The principal review criteria include:

  • relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;
  • originality and scholarly contribution;
  • clarity of the research problem and objectives;
  • quality and relevance of the literature;
  • adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
  • appropriateness and transparency of the methodology;
  • adequacy and credibility of the data or evidence;
  • clarity of the results;
  • depth of analysis and discussion;
  • consistency between findings and conclusions;
  • relevance and quality of references;
  • research and publication ethics; and
  • contribution to public administration and the public sector.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments that help authors improve the scholarly quality of their manuscripts.

5. Review Period

The journal aims to complete each review round within approximately 4–8 weeks.

The actual review period may vary depending on:

  • reviewer availability;
  • manuscript complexity;
  • the need for additional expertise; and
  • the extent of revisions required.

The stated review period is therefore an editorial target and not a guaranteed publication timeline.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the handling editor.

7. Revision by Authors

When revision is required, the corresponding author must submit through OJS:

  1. a revised manuscript; and
  2. a response to reviewers explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Authors should clearly identify the revisions made and provide a reasoned response when a reviewer recommendation is not adopted.

Minor revisions may be evaluated by the handling editor, while major revisions or manuscripts designated for resubmission may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other reviewers when necessary.

8. Additional or Third Reviewer

An additional reviewer may be appointed when:

  • the two initial reviewers provide substantially conflicting assessments;
  • a specific area of expertise is not adequately covered by the initial reviews; or
  • the handling editor considers further independent assessment necessary.

The purpose of an additional review is to support a fair and well-informed editorial decision.

9. Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by an independent handling editor after considering:

  • the manuscript's scholarly quality;
  • the reviewers' reports;
  • the authors' responses and revisions;
  • compliance with journal policies; and
  • the overall contribution of the manuscript.

An editor who has a conflict of interest with the manuscript must not participate in reviewer selection, peer-review management, or the final decision.

If an Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or another member of the editorial team is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript, the manuscript must be handled by another qualified and independent editor.

10. Final Decision Categories

The final editorial decision may be:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication and proceeds to the production stage.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially alter the main research design, analysis, or conclusions.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial improvement before it can be reconsidered. Major revisions do not constitute a guarantee of acceptance.

Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires extensive revision and must undergo another round of peer review before a final decision can be made.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in Inovant in its current form and will not proceed further in the editorial process.

11. Post-Acceptance Process

Once a manuscript has been formally accepted, it proceeds to:

Copyediting → Layout and Production → Author Proofreading → Metadata and DOI Quality Control → Final Publication

Acceptance does not eliminate the journal's right to request technical, linguistic, metadata, ethical, or production-related corrections before publication.

12. Editorial Documentation

The journal requires the peer-review process to be documented through OJS.

Relevant editorial records include, where applicable:

  • editor assignment;
  • reviewer invitations;
  • reviewer acceptance;
  • reviewer reports;
  • revised manuscripts;
  • authors' responses to reviewers;
  • editorial decisions; and
  • subsequent production records.

This documentation forms part of the journal's editorial quality-control and accountability process.

Editorial Correspondence

All official correspondence concerning manuscript submission, peer review, revision, and editorial decisions should be conducted through OJS whenever possible.

For matters requiring assistance from the Editorial Office, authors may contact:

Jurnal Inovasi Administrasi Negara Terapan (Inovant)
Email: [email protected]

The corresponding author is responsible for communicating relevant editorial information to all co-authors.