Peer Review Process
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
JDEP (Jurnal Dinamika Ekonomi Pembangunan) applies double-blind peer review to manuscripts that pass initial editorial assessment. Each manuscript proceeding to external review is assessed by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise.
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
The editorial team checks submissions for relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, completeness, methodological suitability, clarity, and compliance with the Author Guidelines.
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review or returned to authors for correction.
JDEP screens submissions using Turnitin, with a maximum similarity threshold of 20%. Editors assess the nature and context of overlap. Meeting this threshold does not establish originality or guarantee acceptance.
2. Double-Blind Review and Anonymisation
Authors may submit manuscripts containing their names, affiliations, and other author information.
Before external review, the editorial team prepares an anonymised version by removing author names, affiliations, contact details, identifying acknowledgments, and relevant document properties. Editors may request assistance from authors where further anonymisation is necessary.
Before review reports are shared with authors, the editorial team removes reviewer names, affiliations, signatures, and other identifying information from comments, annotated files, and document properties.
Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors throughout review and revision. However, anonymity cannot always be guaranteed where the research or its previous dissemination makes authorship recognisable.
The editorial office retains complete records for administration and accountability. Author information is restored in the final publication.
3. Reviewer Selection
Editors select reviewers based on subject knowledge, methodological expertise, availability, and the absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
Invited reviewers must confirm that they have suitable expertise and can complete the assessment within the agreed period. They must disclose competing interests and decline where impartial assessment is compromised.
Reviewers receive access to manuscript files after accepting the invitation.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers assess:
-
Relevance to the journal’s scope.
-
Originality and scholarly contribution.
-
Theoretical foundation and engagement with previous studies.
-
Appropriateness and transparency of methods.
-
Accuracy and clarity of results.
-
Whether interpretations and conclusions are supported by evidence.
-
Ethical considerations, limitations, and implications.
-
Organisation, language, tables, figures, and references.
Comments must be constructive, respectful, and supported by clear reasoning. Suggested references must be academically relevant.
5. Review Reports
Reviewers submit their assessment through the journal’s online system. Comments for authors should explain the manuscript’s strengths, weaknesses, and required improvements. Confidential concerns may be communicated separately to the editor.
Reviewers should avoid identifying themselves in comments or attached files. The editorial team checks and anonymises reports before forwarding them to authors.
Review reports remain confidential and are not routinely published.
6. Editorial Decisions
Reviewers provide recommendations. The responsible editor makes one of the following decisions after considering the reports and the manuscript:
-
Accept: the manuscript meets the journal’s requirements and may proceed to final editorial preparation.
-
Request Revision: changes are required before a further decision can be made. The editor will explain the required revisions and whether additional review is necessary.
-
Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements or contains concerns that cannot be adequately resolved through revision.
Where reports substantially disagree or further expertise is needed, the editor may invite another reviewer. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.
7. Revision and Reassessment
Authors receiving a Request Revision decision must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each comment was addressed.
Where authors do not adopt a suggestion, they must provide a clear scholarly explanation. Reasoned disagreement alone is not grounds for rejection.
Before revised manuscripts and responses are returned to reviewers, the editorial team checks them for identifying information.
The editor may assess the revised manuscript directly or return it to reviewers. Following reassessment, the decision may be Accept, Request Revision, or Reject.
Authors who require additional time should contact the editorial office before the revision deadline.
8. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must protect unpublished information and must not use it for personal advantage. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or involve others without prior editorial permission.
Submissions authored by editors or Editorial Board members must be handled by another editor without the relevant conflict and follow the same review standards as other submissions.
Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to generative AI services. Reviewers must not delegate scholarly evaluation to AI.
9. Ethical Concerns and Appeals
Reviewers must report suspected plagiarism, data irregularities, or other ethical concerns confidentially to the editor.
Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly assessment and remain independent of publication charges or inappropriate external influence.
Authors may appeal by identifying a substantive error, procedural concern, or relevant evidence requiring reconsideration. Appeals are handled under JDEP’s Publication Ethics policy and do not guarantee acceptance or further review.
Further Information
Questions about peer review may be directed to the editorial office through JDEP’s Contact page.
Reference
