Peer Review Process

 

Jurnal Trias Politika employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and integrity of published articles. In this model, both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous editorial and peer review procedure. The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

1. Initial Submission and Screening

  • All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

  • Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief performs an initial screening to assess:

    • Scope and relevance to the journal’s Aim and scope.

    • Compliance with the Author Guidelines.

    • Similarity index (maximum 20–25%, using Turnitin or similar tools).

    • Completeness of required documents (author contribution statement, etc.).

  • Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be desk-rejected without further review.

2. Assignment to Handling Editor

  • If the manuscript passes the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief assigns it to a Handling Editor with expertise in the relevant subject area.

  • The Handling Editor is responsible for managing the review process, selecting reviewers, and making an initial recommendation.

3. Reviewer Selection

  • The Handling Editor selects at least two reviewers who are experts in the field.

  • Reviewers are chosen based on:

    • Expertise and publication record.

    • Diversity of institutional affiliation and country.

    • No conflict of interest with the authors.

  • The journal maintains a database of qualified reviewers and also invites external experts when necessary.

  • The identity of reviewers is kept confidential. Authors are not informed of reviewer identities, and reviewers are not informed of author identities.

4. Review Process

  • Reviewers are invited via email through OJS. They are given a specific deadline (typically 2–4 weeks) to complete the review.

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

    • Originality and novelty.

    • Theoretical and methodological rigor.

    • Clarity of presentation and language.

    • Contribution to the field.

    • Adequacy of references.

  • Reviewers provide substantive comments and a recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

  • The journal expects reviewers to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts.

5. Editorial Decision

  • Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the Handling Editor makes one of the following decisions:

    • Accept: The manuscript is accepted as is (rare).

    • Minor Revision: The manuscript is accepted with minor revisions.

    • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and will be re-reviewed.

    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

  • The decision is communicated to the corresponding author via OJS, along with the reviewers’ comments (anonymized).

6. Author Revision

  • Authors are required to revise their manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and submit a response letter detailing how each comment has been addressed.

  • Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the Handling Editor and, if necessary, sent back to the original reviewers for further assessment.

  • The revision process may involve multiple rounds until the manuscript meets the journal’s standards.

7. Final Decision and Production

  • Once the manuscript is accepted, it undergoes copyediting, layouting, and proofreading.

  • The corresponding author reviews the final proof and provides approval for publication.

  • A Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is assigned to the article.

  • The article is published online in the next available issue.

8. Post-Publication

9. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

  • All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

  • Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use manuscript content for any purpose other than the review.

  • Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.

  • The journal maintains strict editorial independence; decisions are based solely on academic merit.