Peer Review Policy

The Indonesian Journal of Defence, Security and Strategic Studies applies a rigorous double-anonymous peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of all manuscripts submitted for publication. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the Editorial Office to determine whether they comply with the journal's aims and scope, submission requirements, ethical standards, and basic academic and methodological criteria.

The initial screening may include an assessment of:

  • relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  • originality and scholarly contribution;

  • clarity of research objectives and research questions;

  • methodological appropriateness;

  • academic structure and quality of presentation;

  • compliance with publication and ethical requirements; and

  • potential plagiarism or substantial textual overlap.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall outside its scope may be rejected at the editorial screening stage without external peer review.

2. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Under the double-anonymous review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Authors are therefore required to ensure that their manuscripts do not contain information that directly identifies them or their institutional affiliation where such information could compromise the anonymity of the review process.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and relevance to the manuscript's subject matter. Whenever possible, reviewers should have no conflicts of interest with the authors, their institutions, or the research presented in the manuscript.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on criteria including:

  • originality and significance of the research;

  • relevance to the journal's scope;

  • engagement with relevant theoretical and scholarly literature;

  • clarity of research questions, objectives, and arguments;

  • appropriateness and rigour of the research methodology;

  • quality and adequacy of evidence or data;

  • validity and coherence of the analysis;

  • discussion of findings in relation to existing scholarship;

  • clarity and logical consistency of the manuscript;

  • quality of conclusions and implications; and

  • overall contribution to defence, security, military, or strategic studies.

Reviewers provide constructive comments intended to assist authors in improving the scholarly quality of their manuscripts.

4. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and the Editor's assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial adjustments.

  • Minor Revision: revisions are required before the manuscript can be accepted.

  • Major Revision: substantial revisions are required and the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

  • Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor makes the final publication decision. Editorial decisions are based on the overall quality and scholarly contribution of the manuscript and are not determined solely by a single reviewer's recommendation.

5. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the Editorial Office, together with a clear response to the reviewers' comments. Authors should indicate how each substantive comment has been addressed or provide a reasoned explanation where a suggested change has not been adopted.

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

6. Reviewer Confidentiality and Responsibilities

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Manuscripts and their contents must not be shared, reproduced, used for personal or professional advantage, or disclosed to third parties without authorization from the journal.

Reviewers should provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessments and should identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately acknowledged where applicable. Reviewers should also disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and decline the review when such a conflict could compromise their impartiality.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any circumstances that could create a conflict of interest in relation to a submitted manuscript. Individuals with a significant conflict of interest should not participate in the review or editorial decision-making process.

Authors are also required to disclose relevant conflicts of interest in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.

8. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, originality, methodological rigour, relevance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts. Decisions are made independently of commercial interests, institutional influence, political considerations, or other external pressures.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance of a manuscript based on the recommendation of any individual reviewer, editor, institution, or external party.

9. Review Timeline

The journal aims to conduct the peer review process in a timely manner while maintaining the quality and independence of scholarly evaluation. Review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the need to identify additional reviewers.

Authors may contact the Editorial Office regarding the status of their manuscript if the review process substantially exceeds the journal's normal processing period.

10. Post-Publication Concerns

The journal may investigate concerns relating to published articles, including allegations of plagiarism, research misconduct, serious errors, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or violations of publication ethics. Where appropriate, the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other editorial notice in accordance with applicable publication ethics principles.

The journal reserves the right to take appropriate editorial action when reliable evidence indicates that a published article does not meet the journal's standards of research or publication integrity.