Peer Review Policy

Indonesian Journal of Policing and Security Studies, published by COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA, is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethical peer-review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated according to academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and contribution to policing, law enforcement, public security, or security studies.

The journal uses a double-anonymous peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process to the extent reasonably possible.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process is intended to:

  • Assess the scholarly quality and originality of submitted manuscripts;

  • Evaluate the relevance of manuscripts to the journal's Focus and Scope;

  • Assess the appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;

  • Evaluate the validity and clarity of the analysis and interpretation;

  • Identify weaknesses that should be addressed before publication;

  • Ensure that published articles make a meaningful contribution to policing and security studies; and

  • Support authors in improving the academic quality and clarity of their manuscripts.

Peer review is an essential component of the journal's commitment to research integrity and responsible scholarly publishing.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent for external peer review.

The editorial team evaluates the manuscript for:

  • Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope;

  • Compliance with the journal's submission and formatting requirements;

  • Basic academic quality and scholarly relevance;

  • Originality and potential contribution;

  • Appropriate research methodology;

  • Ethical and research-integrity considerations;

  • Plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse; and

  • Potential conflicts of interest.

A manuscript may be rejected at the editorial screening stage if it is clearly outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum scholarly or technical requirements, contains serious ethical concerns, or is otherwise unsuitable for peer review.

Editorial rejection at this stage does not constitute a peer-review decision.

3. Selection of Reviewers

The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers based on the subject matter and methodological characteristics of the manuscript.

Reviewers should:

  • Possess appropriate academic or professional expertise relevant to the manuscript;

  • Have sufficient knowledge of the research topic or methodology;

  • Be able to provide an independent and objective assessment;

  • Have no significant conflict of interest with the authors or the research; and

  • Be willing to complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

Where possible, reviewers should be selected from institutions independent of the authors' institutional affiliations.

The journal may consider reviewers' academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, methodological competence, and previous reviewing experience when making reviewer assignments.

4. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

ITJR uses a double-anonymous peer-review process.

Under this system:

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers;

  • The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors;

  • Reviewers are expected not to seek to identify the authors; and

  • Authors are expected not to attempt to identify the reviewers.

Authors should therefore ensure that their manuscript and supplementary materials do not unnecessarily reveal their identities or institutional affiliations where such information could compromise anonymous review.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized research fields or where the manuscript has been previously disseminated.

5. Number of Reviewers

Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review will normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may appoint additional reviewers when:

  • Reviewer recommendations substantially conflict;

  • Additional subject expertise is required;

  • A methodological issue requires specialist assessment; or

  • The editor considers an additional review necessary to reach a well-informed editorial decision.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor and is not determined solely by a numerical count of reviewer recommendations.

6. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are generally asked to assess the following aspects of a manuscript:

Academic Contribution

Whether the manuscript addresses a meaningful research problem and makes a substantive contribution to policing, law enforcement, public security, or security studies.

Originality

Whether the manuscript provides an original argument, finding, interpretation, theoretical contribution, empirical evidence, or analytical perspective.

Literature and Theoretical Framework

Whether the manuscript demonstrates appropriate engagement with relevant and sufficiently current scholarly literature and establishes an appropriate theoretical or conceptual framework where applicable.

Methodology

Whether the research design and methodology are appropriate to the research questions and are sufficiently explained and justified.

Analysis and Discussion

Whether the analysis is logically developed, adequately supported by evidence, and appropriately connected to the research questions and relevant literature.

Conclusions

Whether the conclusions are supported by the research and appropriately reflect the scope and limitations of the study.

Clarity and Organization

Whether the manuscript is clearly written, logically structured, and presented in an academically appropriate manner.

References

Whether relevant scholarly sources are appropriately cited and whether citations accurately support the claims made in the manuscript.

Research and Publication Ethics

Whether the manuscript complies with relevant research-ethics and publication-ethics requirements.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept — the manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial corrections.

  • Minor Revision — the manuscript may be suitable for publication after limited revisions.

  • Major Revision — substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

  • Reject and Resubmit — the manuscript requires substantial redevelopment and may be considered as a new submission where appropriate.

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

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor after considering the reviewers' reports and the overall quality of the manuscript.

8. Review Reports

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, specific, and evidence-based comments.

A review should clearly distinguish between:

  • Major issues that affect the validity or contribution of the manuscript;

  • Minor issues that can be addressed through revision;

  • Methodological concerns;

  • Issues concerning interpretation or analysis; and

  • Editorial or presentation matters.

Reviewers should avoid comments that are discriminatory, offensive, personal, or unrelated to the scholarly evaluation of the manuscript.

9. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all information obtained during the review process as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts or review materials with unauthorized individuals;

  • Discuss the manuscript publicly;

  • Use unpublished information for their own research or personal advantage;

  • Copy or distribute substantial portions of the manuscript; or

  • Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript without authorization from the editor.

The confidentiality obligation continues after completion of the peer-review process.

10. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A reviewer should decline the assignment if:

  • They have a personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationship with the authors that could affect objectivity;

  • They have recently collaborated with one of the authors;

  • They have a direct competitive interest in the research;

  • They have a substantial disagreement or relationship that could compromise impartiality; or

  • They otherwise believe that they cannot provide an independent assessment.

The editor may replace a reviewer where a conflict of interest is identified.

11. Reviewer Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts under review.

Reviewers must not upload or submit confidential manuscripts, unpublished research, personal data, peer-review materials, or other protected information to generative AI systems unless expressly authorized by the journal and appropriate confidentiality safeguards are in place.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and scholarly quality of their review reports.

Generative AI must not be used to delegate the reviewer's core scholarly judgment or to generate a review report that the reviewer has not independently evaluated.

12. Reviewer Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the timeframe communicated by the journal.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the agreed period, they should inform the handling editor as soon as possible.

The journal may appoint an alternative reviewer when necessary to maintain an efficient and timely editorial process.

13. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must respond to the reviewers' comments carefully and systematically.

Authors should provide:

  • A revised version of the manuscript; and

  • A response explaining how each substantive reviewer comment has been addressed.

Where the authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they may provide a reasoned academic explanation.

The editor may return a revised manuscript to the original reviewers or assign new reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

14. Second-Round and Subsequent Reviews

Manuscripts requiring major revisions may undergo additional rounds of peer review.

The purpose of subsequent review is to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed substantive concerns raised during the initial review.

A manuscript may be rejected at any stage if the revised version fails to meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards.

15. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor makes the final editorial decision after considering:

  • The reviewers' assessments;

  • The quality and relevance of the manuscript;

  • The authors' responses to reviewer comments;

  • Compliance with the journal's policies;

  • Research and publication ethics; and

  • The overall contribution of the manuscript to the journal's field.

The editor is not required to follow a reviewer recommendation where there are legitimate academic or editorial reasons for reaching a different decision.

16. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that:

  • A significant factual error affected the decision;

  • The manuscript was evaluated based on a demonstrable misunderstanding;

  • A relevant procedural irregularity occurred; or

  • There is evidence of a serious conflict of interest or other issue that may have compromised the review process.

Appeals must provide a clear and reasoned explanation and should address the specific grounds for the appeal.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated independent editor will assess the appeal. Where appropriate, the journal may seek additional expert assessment.

17. Complaints About the Peer-Review Process

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial handling, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, or other aspects of the peer-review process may be submitted through the journal's official communication channels.

The journal will assess credible complaints fairly and confidentially and will take appropriate corrective action where necessary.

18. Peer Review and Publication Ethics

The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

The journal does not tolerate:

  • Manipulation of the peer-review process;

  • Fabricated or fraudulent reviewer identities;

  • Fabricated review reports;

  • Undue influence on reviewers or editors;

  • Unauthorized disclosure of confidential manuscripts;

  • Plagiarism or appropriation of unpublished research; or

  • Other forms of publication misconduct.

Suspected peer-review manipulation or misconduct will be investigated and may result in rejection, suspension of the editorial process, retraction, or other appropriate action.

19. Special Issues

Articles submitted to or invited for a Special Issue are subject to the same peer-review standards as articles submitted to regular issues.

Guest Editors may participate in the editorial process but must comply with the journal's peer-review, conflict-of-interest, confidentiality, and publication-ethics requirements.

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the integrity and final editorial decisions of Special Issues.

Special Issue articles must not receive preferential treatment solely because they are part of a Special Issue.

20. Peer Review and Editorial Independence

The peer-review process is independent of financial considerations.

Payment of the journal's Article Processing Charge (APC) does not influence reviewer selection, peer-review outcomes, or editorial decisions.

The journal's APC is payable only after formal acceptance, in accordance with the journal's APC Policy.

21. Transparency and Continuous Improvement

ITJR is committed to continuously improving its peer-review process.

The journal may periodically review its peer-review procedures to ensure that they remain consistent with developments in scholarly publishing, research integrity, and responsible editorial practice.

Any substantive changes to the Peer Review Policy will be communicated through the journal's official website.

22. Final Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for maintaining the integrity, fairness, and academic quality of the peer-review process.

While reviewers provide essential scholarly assessments, the final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.

The journal is committed to ensuring that every manuscript is handled fairly, confidentially, consistently, and in accordance with the highest standards of scholarly publishing.