PEER REVIEW PROCESS

JPEKA applies an editorial assessment and single-anonymized peer review process to evaluate the relevance, quality, originality, and scholarly integrity of submitted manuscripts. Publication decisions are made by the Editor or Editorial Board, taking reviewer reports and the journal’s editorial standards into account.

1. Initial Editorial Pre-Review

Every submitted manuscript first undergoes an initial editorial check before it is sent to reviewers. The Editorial Team assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal’s focus and scope and complies with the formal requirements in the current Author Guidelines and manuscript template. This check may include manuscript structure, completeness of required sections and declarations, formatting, references, other submission requirements, and an initial assessment of originality and similarity.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic writing, template, or submission requirements may be returned to the Authors for correction or declined before external peer review. Passing the initial check does not imply acceptance or guarantee publication.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial pre-review are assigned to three reviewers with relevant expertise. The intended composition is:

• one international reviewer;
• one Indonesian national reviewer affiliated with an institution other than the journal publisher’s institution; and
• one Indonesian national reviewer affiliated with the publisher’s institution.

Reviewers are selected according to their expertise and ability to provide an independent assessment. Actual or potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed and managed in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy. The manuscript is reviewed single-anonymized peer review process under JPEKA’s blind-review procedure.

3. Scope of Peer Review

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s relevance to the journal, originality and contribution to the field, clarity of the research problem and argument, suitability of the theoretical framework and methodology, adequacy of data and analysis, validity of interpretation and conclusions, use of relevant literature, and overall quality of scholarly presentation. Reviewers should provide clear, evidence-based comments and actionable suggestions for improvement.

A reviewer’s report will generally include an overall evaluation, a recommendation on publication suitability, identification of substantive or methodological weaknesses, and specific suggestions for revision. Reviewer comments may be communicated to the Authors in whole or in part at the Editor’s discretion, subject to confidentiality and the journal’s review procedures.

4. Review Recommendations and Editorial Decision

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, acceptance subject to revision, major revision and resubmission for further assessment, additional peer review, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not by themselves determine the final outcome.

After considering the reviewer reports and the manuscript’s overall suitability, the Editor or Editorial Board may accept the manuscript, request minor or major revisions, send a revised manuscript for another round of review, or reject it. The Editorial Team communicates the decision and relevant comments to the corresponding Author. If reports conflict or further assessment is needed, the Editor may seek an additional opinion or initiate another review round.

5. Author Revision and Resubmission

When revision is requested, Authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript within the deadline communicated by the Editorial Team and provide a clear response to reviewers’ and the Editor’s comments. The response should identify how each point has been addressed or explain why a suggested change has not been made. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the Editor, depending on the nature of the revisions and the decision made.

6. Final Editorial Assessment Before Copyediting

Following peer review and completion of the required revisions, the manuscript undergoes a final editorial assessment before it proceeds to copyediting. The Editorial Team verifies that the Authors have addressed the required revisions and that the revised manuscript continues to comply with the current Author Guidelines and manuscript template. This check may cover manuscript structure, required sections and declarations, formatting, references, tables and figures, and consistency between the revised text and the approved editorial decision.

This final assessment is a compliance and readiness check; it does not replace peer review or automatically change the reviewers’ recommendations. If outstanding issues remain, the Editorial Team may request further corrections before clearing the manuscript for copyediting. Manuscripts that pass this stage proceed to copyediting and subsequent production according to the journal’s workflow.

7. Notification of Decisions

Editorial decisions and requests for revision are communicated to the corresponding Author through the journal’s designated communication channel, ordinarily by email or through the submission system. Authors whose manuscripts are rejected will be notified of the decision. Submission to JPEKA does not guarantee acceptance, and a favorable reviewer recommendation does not itself constitute final acceptance.

8. Editorial Responsibility and Confidentiality

The Editor or Editorial Board is responsible for the final publication decision. Manuscripts and review materials must be handled confidentially. Reviewers are expected to assess submissions objectively, disclose conflicts of interest, avoid personal criticism, and support their evaluations with clear scholarly reasoning. Editorial decisions should be based on academic merit, relevance, research integrity, peer-review assessments, and compliance with JPEKA’s editorial and publication policies.