Peer Review Policy

The Indonesian Anti-Corruption Studies (IACS) applies a rigorous and transparent double-anonymous peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, integrity, and scholarly contribution of published research.

The peer review process is designed to provide an objective assessment of manuscripts while supporting constructive academic dialogue and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.

1. Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to IACS undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review.

The Editorial Team evaluates each submission for:

  • relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;

  • originality and potential scholarly contribution;

  • academic quality and clarity;

  • methodological appropriateness;

  • compliance with the Author Guidelines;

  • ethical and research integrity requirements;

  • completeness of the submission; and

  • compliance with the journal's plagiarism and publication ethics policies.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, do not meet minimum academic standards, contain significant ethical concerns, or fail to comply with essential submission requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Similarity and Originality Screening

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening may undergo plagiarism and text-similarity screening.

Similarity results are treated as an editorial screening indicator rather than an automatic determination of plagiarism. The Editorial Team assesses the nature, extent, context, and attribution of identified similarities before deciding whether further action is required.

Manuscripts containing substantial unattributed material, duplicate publication, or other serious originality concerns may be rejected or subjected to further investigation.

3. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

IACS uses a double-anonymous peer review model. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors throughout the review process.

Each eligible research manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject matter, methodology, or theoretical framework of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on academic expertise, research experience, and the relevance of their scholarly background to the manuscript.

4. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on criteria including:

  • originality and significance of the research;

  • clarity of the research problem or research question;

  • engagement with relevant literature;

  • theoretical or conceptual contribution;

  • appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;

  • quality and reliability of evidence or data;

  • accuracy and adequacy of legal or policy analysis, where applicable;

  • clarity and coherence of argumentation;

  • validity of findings and conclusions;

  • ethical considerations;

  • quality of references and scholarly engagement; and

  • contribution to anti-corruption studies and related fields.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide specific, constructive, and evidence-based comments that can assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

5. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

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

A reviewer should decline an invitation where they:

  • have a personal or professional relationship with the authors;

  • have a significant institutional affiliation or collaboration with the authors;

  • have a financial or other interest that could affect their judgment;

  • have recently collaborated with the authors on related research; or

  • otherwise believe that their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.

6. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share manuscripts or review materials with unauthorized individuals;

  • reproduce or distribute unpublished content;

  • discuss the manuscript with others without permission from the Editor; or

  • use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage.

Editors and reviewers must protect the confidentiality of the manuscript throughout the review process.

7. Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, objective, respectful, and academically constructive evaluations.

Reviews should focus on the manuscript and its scholarly contribution rather than the identity, nationality, institutional affiliation, political position, or personal characteristics of the authors.

Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, or inappropriate language are not acceptable.

Reviewers should also notify the Editor if they identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, citation manipulation, or other research or publication misconduct.

8. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and the Editor's independent assessment, IACS may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal's academic and editorial standards and requires no substantive revision.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited revisions before final acceptance.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revision. A revised version may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript demonstrates potential but requires substantial redevelopment before it can be reconsidered as a new submission.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards concerning scope, originality, academic quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, or scholarly contribution.

9. Editorial Authority

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

The Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor retains responsibility for the final decision and may consider the overall quality, relevance, reviewer reports, methodological issues, ethical concerns, and contribution of the manuscript.

Where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, the Editor may seek an additional independent review or make a decision based on the available evidence.

10. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

  1. a revised manuscript; and

  2. a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.

Authors should clearly explain how each substantive comment has been addressed and identify significant changes made to the manuscript.

The Editorial Team may request further revisions where necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's academic standards.

11. Special Issues

Manuscripts submitted to Special Issues are subject to the same standards of editorial assessment, peer review, research integrity, and publication ethics as manuscripts submitted to regular issues.

Guest Editors may participate in the management of Special Issue submissions but must comply with the journal's conflict-of-interest and editorial independence requirements.

Where a Guest Editor is an author or has a significant conflict of interest concerning a submission, the manuscript will be handled by an independent Editor.

12. Reviewer Recognition

IACS acknowledges the important contribution of peer reviewers to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.

The journal may provide appropriate recognition of reviewers' contributions while maintaining reviewer confidentiality and complying with applicable privacy requirements.

13. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts under review.

Reviewers should not upload or submit unpublished manuscript content, confidential reviewer reports, or other protected materials to generative AI systems or external tools where doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or research integrity.

Where AI-assisted tools are used in preparing a review, reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and appropriateness of the review.

14. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that:

  • a significant procedural error occurred;

  • relevant information was overlooked;

  • the decision was based on a demonstrable misunderstanding of the manuscript; or

  • there is evidence of a serious conflict of interest or breach of the review process.

Appeals must provide a clear and substantive justification and should not simply dispute the academic judgment of reviewers.

Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent Editor where appropriate. The decision following an appeal is final.

15. Complaints and Ethical Concerns

Concerns regarding reviewer conduct, editorial procedures, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, research misconduct, or other publication ethics matters may be reported to the Editor-in-Chief.

IACS will investigate credible concerns fairly and confidentially and may request additional information or documentation from the relevant parties.

Where appropriate, serious cases may be referred to the relevant institution or other competent authority.

16. Publication Ethics

The peer review process operates in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy, Anti-Plagiarism Policy, Research Ethics Policy, and Conflict of Interest Policy.

All participants in the editorial process are expected to uphold the principles of academic integrity, fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and responsible scholarly publishing.