Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Process

The Indonesian Climate Justice Review applies a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the quality, originality, integrity, and scholarly contribution of every manuscript submitted for publication. In this process, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to maintain objectivity, fairness, and impartiality.

All manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic merit, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, significance of findings, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope, regardless of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor. This assessment includes:

  • Compliance with the journal's aims and scope.

  • Adherence to the Author Guidelines and manuscript formatting requirements.

  • Originality screening using plagiarism detection software.

  • Ethical compliance, including research ethics and publication ethics.

  • Basic assessment of scientific quality and novelty.

  • Similarity and Generative AI Report

Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts passing the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least three (3) independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

Under the Double-Blind Peer Review system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

  • Editors manage all communication to preserve reviewer anonymity.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, publication record, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on, but not limited to, the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty of the research.

  • Significance and contribution to climate justice scholarship.

  • Relevance to the journal's scope.

  • Soundness of theoretical framework.

  • Methodological rigor and research design.

  • Quality and validity of data analysis.

  • Interpretation and discussion of findings.

  • Adequacy and relevance of references.

  • Clarity, organization, and academic writing quality.

  • Ethical compliance.

  • Overall scientific merit.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer Recommendations

Each reviewer may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision.

  • Minor Revision.

  • Major Revision.

  • Reject.

The final editorial decision is not determined solely by the reviewers' recommendations but considers the overall quality of the manuscript, the consistency of reviewers' comments, and the editorial judgment.

Editorial Decision

After receiving reviews from a minimum of three reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept.

  2. Accept with Minor Revisions.

  3. Major Revisions Required.

  4. Reject.

If reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the Editorial Board may assign one or more additional independent reviewers before reaching a final decision.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to:

  • Revise the manuscript according to reviewers' comments.

  • Submit a detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.

  • Highlight all modifications made in the revised manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions have been requested.

Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the peer review process according to the following indicative timeline:

  • Initial Editorial Screening: 7–14 days.

  • Reviewer Assignment: 5–10 days.

  • Peer Review: 3–6 weeks.

  • Author Revision:

    • Minor Revision: within 14 days.

    • Major Revision: within 30 days.

  • Final Editorial Decision: approximately 1–2 weeks after receipt of the revised manuscript.

Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Reviewer Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript contents.

  • Not share or discuss manuscripts with third parties without editorial permission.

  • Not use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage.

  • Destroy or permanently delete manuscript files after completing the review process if requested by the journal.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must immediately disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest arising from:

  • Personal relationships.

  • Institutional affiliations.

  • Collaborative research.

  • Financial interests.

  • Competitive relationships.

Reviewers with conflicts of interest are expected to decline the review invitation.

Editors also recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.

  • Identify relevant published work not cited by the authors.

  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, unethical research practices, or other forms of scientific misconduct.

  • Complete reviews within the agreed review period.

Authors are expected to cooperate fully throughout the review process and respond respectfully to reviewer comments.

Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, providing a clear academic justification.

The appeal will be evaluated independently by the Editorial Board and, where appropriate, the manuscript may be sent to one or more additional independent reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief's decision following the appeal shall be final.

Publication Ethics

The peer review process of the Indonesian Climate Justice Review follows internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and best editorial practices (COPE Standard). The journal is committed to maintaining transparency, integrity, fairness, confidentiality, academic independence, and the highest standards of scholarly publishing throughout every stage of the editorial and peer review process.