Peer Preview Process

Eksekutif: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of every manuscript considered for publication.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in government studies, public administration, politics, public policy, governance, and related social sciences. Each reviewer works independently and professionally and is expected to uphold confidentiality, objectivity, academic integrity, and the ethical standards of scholarly publication.

Review Process
1
Initial Editorial Screening. Every submitted manuscript is initially screened by the editorial team to assess its relevance to the journal's focus and scope, compliance with the author guidelines, completeness, originality, and basic academic quality. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the author or declined before peer review.
2
Reviewer Assignment. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject of the manuscript. A reviewer may decline the invitation when the manuscript is outside the reviewer's area of competence, when a conflict of interest exists, or when the review cannot be completed within the required period. The editor may then appoint another qualified reviewer.
3
Double-Blind Review. The journal applies a double-blind review model. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. Authors must therefore remove identifying information from the manuscript before submission.
4
Review Period. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript and submit their recommendations within a maximum period of four weeks after accepting the review assignment. If the review cannot be completed within this period, the reviewer should notify the editor so that an extension or reassignment can be considered.
5
Evaluation and Reviewer Comments. Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, quality of analysis, clarity of presentation, relevance of references, ethical compliance, and contribution to government and political studies. Evaluations and recommendations are submitted through the OJS review form. Reviewers may also upload an annotated review file when necessary.
6
Author Revision. Reviewer comments are communicated to the author through the editor. When revisions are required, the author must submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response to each reviewer comment. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
7
Editorial Decision. The editor considers the reviewers' recommendations, the author's revisions, and the journal's editorial standards before making the final decision. The final authority to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial team.
Review Recommendations
Accept Submission
The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
Revisions Required
The manuscript requires revision in response to editorial and reviewer comments.
Resubmit for Review
Substantial revision is required, followed by a new round of peer review.
Decline Submission
The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is unsuitable for publication.
Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and related review materials as confidential documents. Information obtained during peer review must not be used for personal advantage or disclosed to third parties. Reviewers must identify any potential conflict of interest and immediately inform the editor when an impartial assessment cannot be provided.