Peer Review Process
Jurnal Politik Profetik applies a rigorous peer review process to uphold the quality and originality of published research. The journal operates under a double-blind peer review system, ensuring anonymity for authors and reviewers. Expert reviewers in relevant fields conduct the review, assessing manuscripts based on scientific merit, originality, and alignment with the scope of the journal.
Initial Assessment: Upon submission of a manuscript, the editorial board conducts an initial evaluation to ensure conformity with the journal's scope and publication criteria. Manuscripts that do not meet the standards and do not contain the article's originality statement about not committing plagiarism will be rejected. In addition, the editorial board also checks formatting and adherence to citations. Unmet criteria will prompt reformatting and resubmission by the author if necessary.
Assignment of reviewers: The editorial board will select at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of study and have experience in the research area the manuscript covers. The reviewers will be blinded to the identity of the authors, and the authors will be blinded to the identity of the reviewers. The listing of the names of the authors, acknowledgments, and references to author contributions must be removed from the manuscript and posted in the Title page file. The assigned editor will then send invitations to reviewers. The invited reviewers are expected to be affiliated with differing institutions from those of the corresponding authors. Moreover, reviewers will consider the invitation according to their own scientific expertise, any potential conflicts of interest, and other relevant criteria. Our journal is committed to assigning reviewers within two weeks.
Review Process: The reviewers assess the scientific quality, originality, validity, and relevance of the manuscript. A two-week review period is standard, but reviewers may request additional time if needed. Reviewers should provide constructive feedback to improve the manuscript. Recommendations may include acceptance, rejection, or revision.
Decision: The editor-in-chief makes the final decision based on reviewer feedback and adherence to publication standards. If significant discrepancies exist in reviewer comments, an additional review might be sought. Authors receive decisions (acceptance, rejection, or revision needs) via the online system, with anonymous reviewer comments. Initial decision duration is approximately one month, with 2-4 weeks from acceptance to publication.
Revision: Accepted manuscripts may require revision based on reviewer feedback. Authors typically have two weeks for minor revisions and four weeks for major revisions. Major revisions undergo a second round of review by the same reviewers to ensure addressed feedback adequacy. Minor revisions may not require further review.
Publication: Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and formatting for journal publication, concluding the process.
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.