Review Process Policy

Review Process Policy

  1. Purpose

Jurnal Maneksi (Management Ekonomi dan Akuntansi) is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of published scholarly work. The journal applies an editorial review process to ensure that submitted manuscripts meet appropriate academic standards and contribute meaningfully to the fields of management, economics, accounting, and related disciplines.

The review process is designed to support objective editorial decisions, constructive feedback, academic integrity, and continuous improvement in scholarly publishing.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Maneksi are subject to an initial screening by the editorial team before being considered for peer review.

During this stage, the editor evaluates whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal's aims and scope.
  • Meets the journal's submission requirements and manuscript formatting guidelines.
  • Demonstrates sufficient academic relevance, clarity, and originality.
  • Includes the necessary sections, references, declarations, and supporting information.
  • Complies with the journal's publication ethics and plagiarism policies.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision before review or rejected without external peer review. The journal may also conduct an initial similarity assessment in accordance with its plagiarism policy.

  1. Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening may be sent to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the submission.

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript's academic quality, originality, methodological appropriateness, clarity of presentation, validity of analysis, relevance of conclusions, and contribution to the existing literature.

The journal aims to ensure that the review process is fair, independent, constructive, and free from inappropriate personal or institutional influence.

Review model: The journal should clearly identify its official peer-review model, such as single-blind or double-blind peer review, on its website. If double-blind peer review is adopted, the identities of authors and reviewers should be concealed from one another as far as reasonably possible.

The number of reviewers assigned to each manuscript and the use of additional reviews will be determined according to the journal's established editorial procedures.

  1. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, relevant academic or professional experience, research competence, and ability to provide an independent assessment of the manuscript.

The editorial team will seek to avoid conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers. Reviewers should not be assigned to evaluate manuscripts where personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationships could compromise their impartiality.

The editor may invite additional reviewers when the initial assessments are insufficient, substantially inconsistent, or require further specialist expertise.

  1. Review Criteria

Reviewers may evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  1. Relevance and scope: The manuscript is relevant to the journal's aims and subject areas.
  2. Originality and contribution: The work offers a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge or practice.
  3. Literature review: The manuscript engages appropriately with relevant and current scholarly literature.
  4. Methodology: The research design, methods, data sources, and analytical procedures are appropriate and adequately explained.
  5. Results and discussion: The findings are presented clearly and interpreted in relation to the research objectives and relevant literature.
  6. Conclusions and implications: The conclusions are supported by the findings, and the implications are appropriately discussed.
  7. Presentation and organization: The manuscript is logically structured, clearly written, and adequately referenced.
  8. Research and publication ethics: The manuscript demonstrates appropriate attention to research integrity, citation practices, authorship, and relevant ethical requirements.

Not every criterion will apply equally to every manuscript type. Reviewers should consider the nature, purpose, and methodology of the submission.

  1. Editorial Decisions

Following the review process, the editor will make a decision based on the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's quality, and the journal's editorial standards.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any final editorial requirements.
  • Minor Revision: The authors are asked to address limited issues before a final decision.
  • Major Revision: The authors are required to make substantial revisions and provide a response to the reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript may be sent for further review.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements or is not considered suitable for publication.

The editor is responsible for the final decision. Reviewer recommendations are important but are not automatically binding on the editorial team.

  1. Revision and Author Response

When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the editorial team.

Authors should provide a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. If an author disagrees with a particular recommendation, the response should provide a clear and academically justified explanation.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent of the revisions and the nature of the comments.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified period, without an approved extension, may result in the manuscript being treated as withdrawn or requiring a new submission, subject to editorial procedures.

  1. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for personal, professional, or research purposes without appropriate authorization.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts with third parties or upload confidential manuscript content to external artificial intelligence tools or other services that may compromise confidentiality, unless expressly permitted under the journal's applicable policies and with appropriate safeguards.

All participants must respect the confidentiality of the review process and handle manuscript information responsibly.

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.
  • Identify relevant published work that has not been adequately cited, where appropriate.
  • Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or other potential ethical concerns.
  • Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before undertaking a review.
  • Decline the invitation if they lack the necessary expertise or cannot complete the review within the agreed timeframe.
  • Maintain confidentiality and avoid personal, discriminatory, or offensive comments.

Reviewers should focus their evaluations on the manuscript's scholarly content and should not use the review process to promote personal interests or unfairly disadvantage authors.

  1. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, relevance, research integrity, and the journal's publication standards.

Editors must declare and appropriately manage conflicts of interest involving authors, reviewers, institutions, funders, or the subject matter of a manuscript. When a conflict exists, the manuscript should be assigned to an independent editor where feasible.

No manuscript should receive preferential or unfavorable treatment solely because of the authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, professional status, personal relationships, or financial connections.

  1. Review Timelines

The journal aims to process submissions within a reasonable period. The time required for editorial screening, reviewer invitations, peer review, revisions, and final decisions may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds required.

Authors will be informed of significant developments in the editorial process through the journal's submission system or other designated communication channels.

Any specific review-time targets published by the journal should reflect its actual editorial performance and established procedures.

  1. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual error, a procedural irregularity, or an apparent breach of publication ethics may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial team.

Appeals must provide clear explanations and relevant supporting evidence. Disagreement with a reviewer's academic opinion alone may not be sufficient grounds for reconsideration.

Appeals and complaints will be assessed fairly by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately independent editor. The journal may seek additional expert advice when necessary. The outcome of an appeal will be communicated to the relevant author, and the decision following the appeal will normally be final.

  1. Final Statement

Jurnal Maneksi (Management Ekonomi dan Akuntansi) is committed to conducting a rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethical review process. Through appropriate editorial screening, independent peer review, constructive feedback, and responsible decision-making, the journal seeks to publish high-quality scholarly work that contributes to the development of knowledge in management, economics, accounting, and related fields.