PEER REVIEW PROCESS

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Manuscripts submitted to Politico: Jurnal Ilmu Politik will undergo a selection and assessment process by the Board of Editors to ensure their accordance with the writing guideline, focus, and scope, and that they are of excellent academic quality.  The manuscripts will be reviewed using the double blind peer review method in which case neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

 

Desk Review. At the desk review stage, manuscripts will be examined to ensure that they have met the writing guideline, focus, and scope with excellent academic quality. If they do not meet the conditions, the author will be given the opportunity to revise their manuscript according to the given criteria. However, there is also the possibility that the manuscript will be directly rejected.

 

Peer review. When the manuscript has passed the desk review stage, it will then be delivered to two reviewers who are experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. The review process will be done within 3 weeks. Manuscripts that did not successfully pass the desk review process will not proceed to this stage.

 

Reviewer’s decision. The reviewers will provide the following recommendations:

  1. Accepted; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication
  2. Accepted with minor revisions; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns
  3. Accepted with major revisions; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised
  4. Rejected; means that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication or the given reviews relate to very basic issues

 

The reviewer’s decision will be considered by the Board of Editors to determine the ensuing process of the manuscript.

 

Revision Stage. Once the manuscript has been received with notations of minor or major revisions, it will be returned to the author with a review summary form. For manuscripts accepted with major revisions, authors are allotted 3 weeks to revise. Whereas for manuscripts accepted with minor revisions, 1 week is allotted for revision. When returning the revised manuscript, the author is required to fill in and attach the review summary form. 

 

Final decision. At this stage, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the Board of Editors to ensure that the author has revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns. In this final decision, the manuscript may still be rejected if the author did not seriously conduct the revisions necessary.

 

Proofread. Once the manuscript has been deemed acceptable by the Board of Editors, it will undergo a proofreading process to maintain linguistic quality.

 

Publication confirmation. At this stage, the final layout of the manuscript will be resent to the author to ensure that the content is in accordance with the author’s writing. At this stage, the author may revise any typographical error found in the final manuscript. Once confirmation from the author is given, the Editorial Secretary will process the manuscript for online publication on the website as well as print publication.

 

 

 

PUBLICATION FREQUENCY

POLITICO: Jurnal Ilmu Politik  publishes four times in a year i.e. January, April, July and Oktober.

 

OPEN ACCESS POLICY

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

SCREENING PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism screening will be conducted by POLITICO : Jurnal Ilmu Politik Editorial Board using Turnitin.

 

ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards:

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

  1. Data Access and Retention:

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide such data within a reasonable time.

  1. Originality and Plagiarism:

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

  1. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication:

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

  1. Acknowledgement of Sources:

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

  1. Authorship of the Paper:

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

  1. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

  1. Fundamental errors in published works:

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

  1. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

               

 

Duties of Editors

  1. Fair Play:

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

  1. Confidentiality:

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

  1. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

  1. Publication Decisions:

The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

  1. Review of Manuscripts:

The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

 

 

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

  1. Promptness:

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process

  1. Standards of Objectivity:

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

  1. Confidentiality:

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

  1. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

  1. Acknowledgement of Sources:

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

 

Reviewers’ Guideline

Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik (JSP) will undergo a blind review process. The reviewers are tasked to carry out reviews that include analyses and assessments of manuscripts’ acceptability to be published in Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik (JSP). Reviewers should consider the following points prior to conducting their review:

  1. Does the manuscript you are being asked to review match your expertise?

                If the article does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the Editorial Secretary.

  1. Do you have time to review the manuscript?

The review process should be completed within 2 weeks after a manuscript has been sent. If you do not agree with this condition and need more time to review, please contact the Editorial Secretary.

  1. Are there any conflicts of interests with the manuscript?

                If you have any conflicts of interests with the manuscript, please contact the Editorial Secretary

  1. Are there any indications of plagiarism in the manuscript?

If you suspect any indications of plagiarism in the manuscript, please contact the Editorial Secretary immediately.

                 

Review Process:

  1. Title: Does it clearly describe the manuscript?
  2. Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the manuscript?
  3. Introduction: The introduction should contain the general background and research questions or hypotheses. Literature review should be included in the introduction.
  4. Has the manuscript met the required journal writing guideline?

                 

Content:

  1. If the issue relating to the reviewed manuscript has previously been published, is the manuscript sufficient to warrant publication?
  2. Does the manuscript contain novelty, profound knowledge, and interesting points to warrant publication?
  3. Does the manuscript contribute to the development of science and knowledge?
  4. Are the main theories or references used in line with the study?

                 

Method:

  1. Does the author accurately describe how the data was collected?
  2. Does the article answer the questions posed in the study?
  3. Are new methods used? If there are new methods, are they explained in detail?

                 

Results and Discussion:

The results should explain the findings of the author. This section should be written clearly in a logical sequence. Reviewers need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted.

                 

Conclusion:

The conclusion should contain recommendations and summary of the research. The summary should have examples of answers corresponding to the research objective or the acquired findings. The summary should not contain repetitions of research results or discussions. The recommendations provided should correlate with the concept of the conducted research or suggestions for improving the study.

                 

Table and Figures:

The tables and figures presented should correlate with the article’s content and they should have clear sources of reference (such as books, journals, website, or other references)

                 

References:

Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is written in the reference list using the American Psychological Association (APA) style. The references used should be published within the last 10 years, consisting of 80% from journal articles and 20% from books, theses, or other relevant publications.

                 

Writing Style:

Please write your text in Indonesia Languange or good English that is interesting to read and easy to understand.

                 

Final Review:

  1. Assessment of the manuscript review should be written in the Review Form sent by the Editorial Secretary./td>
  2. Reviewers are required to fill in the table marked with asterisks.
  3. At the end of the review, reviewers are required to give one of the following recommendations:
    1. Accepted; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication
    2. Accepted with minor revisions; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the reviewers concerns
    3. Accepted with major revisions; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised
    4. Rejected; means that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication or the given reviews relate to very basic issues
  4. Upon completion of the review form, please fill in the reviewer’s identity in the corresponding columns.