Peer Review Process

Every manuscript that is submitted to the Jurnal Politik Profetik is reviewed independently by at least two reviewers in the form of a "peer-review". The decision for publication, amendment, or rejection is largely based on their reports/recommendations. In certain cases, the editor may submit the article for review to another third reviewer before making a decision, if necessary. However, the editor of the Jurnal Politik Profetik has the full right to decide whether the article is accepted or rejected

Jurnal Politik Profetik uses a double-blind policy review, the initial authors and articles are not shown until the articles are accepted for further review and publication. Each submitted article will be evaluated based on the following considerations:

  • Manuscripts are original works
  • Congruence between methodology and research topic
  • Have good analysis
  • Ability to communicate with readers
  • Based on recommendations from reviewers
  • The normal time for screening and evaluation of manuscripts is four to six months from the date of receipt
  • Articles submitted to the Jurnal Politik Profetik can be in Indonesian, English, or Arabic. However, abstracts must be in Indonesian and English.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and the editorial communications with the authors may also assist the author in improving the quality of the paper.

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 editors and excuse himself from the review process.

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.

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

Acknowledgment 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 a proper 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.

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 with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the papers.

Review Process
Every manuscript submitted to Jurnal Politik Profetik is independently reviewed by at least two reviewers in the form of a "double-blind review". The decision for publication, amendment, or rejection is based upon their reports/recommendations. In certain cases, the editor may submit an article for review to another, the third reviewer before making a decision, if necessary.

Duties of Authors

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.

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.

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.

Acknowledgment 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.

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 research. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others 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 in 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.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another 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.

Fundamental errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.