Peer Review Process

Description
The Journal of Public Administration and Policy (JAKP) is committed to the highest academic standards in scientific publications. A key pillar in maintaining the quality of published manuscripts is rigorous, objective, and fair peer review. This policy describes the review model used by JAKP, the responsibilities of the parties, and the operational procedures. JAKP applies a double-blind peer review model, where the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential to minimize bias. Peer review is a critical evaluation of scientific papers by experts in related fields who are independent of the editorial team. The aim is to assess scientific validity, novelty contribution, policy relevance, and sharpness and clarity of argument. JAKP's double-blind model ensures that manuscripts are assessed based on their
scientific quality, not the identity or affiliation of the authors.
Policy
a. Mandatory Peer Review
All scientific manuscripts (research articles, conceptual reviews, policy studies) must go through a double-blind peer review process before a decision is made to publish. Editorial or review articles may be reviewed through a different process, depending on the type and purpose.
b. Reviewer Appointment
Editors select reviewers based on thematic expertise, publication track record in reputable journals (at least within the last 3 years), and academic independence. Reviewers are required to declare potential conflicts of interest before accepting the assignment.
c. Recommendation of Reviewers by Authors
Authors can propose a maximum of five reviewers with the following conditions:
• At least three are from institutions outside Indonesia.
• Have recent publications in the last 3 years in Scopus/WoS indexed journals.
• Registered with an official institutional email (not Gmail/Yahoo).
• No personal or professional relationship with the authors.
• Have a verifiable Scopus ID and h-index (at least 5 is highly recommended).
• All submissions are considered independently by the editors.
d. Confidentiality and Ownership of the Review Report
All manuscript documents and correspondence are confidential. Reviewers should not disseminate, store or utilize the contents of the manuscript for personal use. The review report is the copyright of the reviewer. JAKP is only authorized to share them with authors anonymously and not to publish them without written permission from the reviewer.
e. Ethics and Professionalism of Reviewers
Reviewers must be objective, data-driven and constructive. Personal criticism of authors is prohibited. Reviews must be returned on time. Delegation of reviews to others without the editor's permission is not allowed.
f. Editorial Decision
The final decision (publish, revise, or reject) rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor, based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's independent judgment. The decision is based solely on the scientific contribution and the suitability of the manuscript to the focus of the journal.
g. Review and Revision
Authors are required to provide a structured response to all review comments. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers or assessed directly by the editor, depending on the scale of the changes.
h. Awards for Reviewers
With individual consent, JAKP may publish an annual list of active reviewers on the journal's official website. In addition, reviewers can be recognized through external platforms such as Publons or ReviewerCredits.
i. Appeal Procedure
Authors have the right to submit a written appeal within 14 working days if there is an allegation of bias, procedural error, or erroneous evaluation. The appeal will be handled by a different editor than the previous one. Appeal decisions are final and based on academic judgment. Technical Aspects
1. Manuscript Anonymization
Authors are responsible for removing all identifying information from the main manuscript. Title page, affiliations, and acknowledgments should be submitted as separate files.
2. Online Editorial System
JAKP uses Open Journal System (OJS) for manuscript tracking, reviewer appointment, and correspondence management.
3. Reviewer Guidelines
JAKP provides assessment forms and reviewer guidelines based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Aspects assessed include originality, scientific contribution, methodological validity, and clarity of presentation.