Peer Review Policy

Indonesian Economic Justice Review (IEJR) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, confidential, and ethical peer review process. The peer review system is designed to ensure the quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

IEJR follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and scholarly publishing, including the principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

The journal applies a double-anonymized peer review system for scholarly research articles, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process is conducted to:

  • evaluate the originality and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts;
  • assess the relevance of manuscripts to the aims and scope of IEJR;
  • evaluate the theoretical and conceptual foundations of the research;
  • assess the appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;
  • evaluate the validity of data, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions;
  • identify significant weaknesses, methodological problems, or ethical concerns;
  • improve the clarity, quality, and academic contribution of manuscripts; and
  • provide the editors with an independent scholarly basis for making publication decisions.

Peer review is considered an essential component of the journal's quality-control system. IEJR normally requires at least two independent external reviewers for each research article, consistent with established scholarly publishing quality-control practices. 

2. Type of Peer Review

IEJR uses a double-anonymized peer review process.

Under this system:

  • reviewers do not know the identities of the authors;
  • authors do not know the identities of the reviewers;
  • reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors;
  • authors must not attempt to identify the reviewers; and
  • review reports are normally not published together with the article.

The identities of reviewers will remain confidential unless the journal introduces a different review model and the reviewer has explicitly agreed to disclosure.

The journal clearly identifies the type and procedures of peer review on its website in accordance with principles of transparency in scholarly publishing.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

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

The initial assessment may consider:

  • conformity with the aims and scope of IEJR;
  • compliance with the journal's author guidelines;
  • originality and potential contribution;
  • academic and methodological quality;
  • completeness and organization of the manuscript;
  • appropriate use of references and scholarly literature;
  • plagiarism and text-similarity concerns;
  • research and publication ethics;
  • potential conflicts of interest; and
  • suitability of the manuscript for external peer review.

The editorial team may reject a manuscript without external peer review if it:

  • falls substantially outside the journal's scope;
  • does not meet essential submission requirements;
  • contains serious methodological deficiencies;
  • lacks sufficient scholarly contribution;
  • contains significant ethical concerns; or
  • fails to meet basic academic and publication standards.

An initial editorial rejection is an editorial suitability decision and does not necessarily indicate that the research itself is invalid.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified external reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewers may be selected based on:

  • academic expertise;
  • research specialization;
  • methodological competence;
  • relevant publication experience;
  • knowledge of the economic, social, legal, institutional, or policy context of the research;
  • independence from the authors; and
  • absence of actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

Depending on the manuscript, IEJR may seek reviewers with expertise in areas including, but not limited to:

  • economics;
  • economic justice;
  • development economics;
  • public economics;
  • international economics;
  • monetary and financial economics;
  • Islamic economics;
  • law and economics;
  • business and management;
  • public policy;
  • economic regulation;
  • taxation;
  • labor and employment;
  • social welfare and inequality;
  • poverty and development;
  • financial inclusion;
  • economic institutions and governance;
  • sustainability and the green economy; and
  • socioeconomic and interdisciplinary studies.

Reviewers should be independent of the authors and should not be members of the journal's editorial team for the purpose of external peer review.

5. Reviewer Independence

The journal seeks to avoid assigning reviewers who:

  • work at the same institution as any of the authors;
  • have recently co-authored publications with the authors;
  • have a close personal or professional relationship with the authors;
  • have a direct supervisory or subordinate relationship with the authors;
  • have a significant academic or professional rivalry with the authors; or
  • have another relationship that could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission. Such suggestions are advisory only. The final selection of reviewers is determined independently by the editors.

The journal may reject suggested reviewers where their independence or suitability cannot be adequately established.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to conduct their assessments objectively, independently, confidentially, constructively, and within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers should:

  • assess the manuscript objectively and fairly;
  • evaluate its originality and contribution to knowledge;
  • assess the relevance and adequacy of the theoretical framework;
  • evaluate the appropriateness of the research design and methodology;
  • assess the validity of data collection and analytical procedures;
  • evaluate whether the conclusions are supported by the findings;
  • identify important limitations;
  • identify relevant literature that may have been overlooked where appropriate;
  • identify unsupported claims or significant errors;
  • provide clear and constructive comments;
  • distinguish major concerns from minor editorial issues;
  • disclose any conflict of interest;
  • maintain confidentiality throughout the review process; and
  • notify the editor if they cannot complete the review within the agreed period.

Reviewers should focus their evaluation on the manuscript rather than the authors personally.

COPE emphasizes that peer review depends on responsible and ethical conduct, confidentiality, objectivity, constructive feedback, and clear communication between reviewers and editors. 

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals;
  • disclose information concerning the manuscript;
  • distribute unpublished manuscript content;
  • use unpublished data, arguments, methods, or findings for personal or professional advantage;
  • reproduce substantial portions of the manuscript for purposes unrelated to the review; or
  • contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript without authorization from the editor.

The confidentiality requirement applies throughout and after the peer review process.

Any suspected breach of confidentiality may be investigated by the editorial team and may result in removal of the reviewer from the journal's reviewer pool.

8. Conflicts of Interest

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

Conflicts may arise from:

  • financial interests;
  • employment or institutional relationships;
  • personal relationships;
  • previous or current collaboration;
  • academic competition;
  • professional relationships;
  • supervisory relationships;
  • commercial interests; or
  • other circumstances that may affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the reviewer's impartiality.

A reviewer with a significant conflict of interest should decline the review invitation.

Editors must also manage their own conflicts of interest. Where an editor has a conflict involving a manuscript, another qualified editor may be assigned to manage the review and decision-making process.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

IEJR recognizes that generative artificial intelligence and automated tools may create significant risks to confidentiality, accuracy, bias, and research integrity in peer review.

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, tables, figures, supplementary materials, or other manuscript content into publicly accessible generative AI systems.

Reviewers should not use generative AI systems to generate, replace, or substantively compose their peer review reports.

Where AI-assisted tools are used for limited language or administrative purposes, the reviewer remains responsible for:

  • confidentiality;
  • accuracy;
  • originality;
  • integrity; and
  • compliance with the journal's peer review policy.

Any permitted use of automated tools must remain subject to appropriate human oversight.

This approach reflects current scholarly publishing guidance concerning the risks of generative AI in peer review, including confidentiality, bias, superficial assessments, and inaccurate or fabricated information. 

10. Peer Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally asked to assess manuscripts according to the following criteria.

A. Originality and Contribution

  • Does the manuscript provide an original contribution?
  • Does it advance knowledge or understanding in economics, economic justice, policy, business, law and economics, development, or related fields?
  • Is the research question sufficiently important and clearly formulated?

B. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

  • Is the theoretical framework appropriate?
  • Are the relevant concepts clearly defined?
  • Does the manuscript engage critically with existing scholarship?
  • Are the theoretical arguments logically developed?

C. Literature Review

  • Is the literature review relevant and sufficiently comprehensive?
  • Does it include appropriate recent scholarship?
  • Does the manuscript identify a meaningful research gap?
  • Does the study clearly position itself within the existing literature?

D. Methodology

  • Is the research design appropriate for the research question?
  • Are the methods adequately described?
  • Is the sampling or data-selection procedure appropriate?
  • Are variables, indicators, instruments, or analytical procedures sufficiently explained?
  • Is the methodology sufficiently rigorous and appropriate for the discipline?

E. Data and Analysis

For empirical studies, reviewers may consider:

  • data quality and appropriateness;
  • validity of measurement;
  • analytical methods;
  • statistical or econometric procedures;
  • robustness of the analysis;
  • transparency of assumptions; and
  • consistency between the evidence and the conclusions.

For qualitative, conceptual, doctrinal, or interdisciplinary studies, reviewers should assess the appropriateness and rigor of the analytical framework used.

F. Economic Justice and Policy Relevance

Where relevant, reviewers may assess whether the manuscript adequately addresses issues such as:

  • distributional consequences;
  • inequality;
  • access and inclusion;
  • fairness and economic rights;
  • institutional accountability;
  • public policy implications;
  • vulnerable or marginalized groups;
  • regulatory implications; and
  • broader socioeconomic consequences.

G. Results and Discussion

  • Are the findings clearly presented?
  • Are they adequately interpreted?
  • Are alternative explanations considered where appropriate?
  • Are the findings appropriately compared with previous research?
  • Does the discussion distinguish evidence-based findings from speculation?

H. Conclusions and Implications

  • Are the conclusions supported by the research findings?
  • Does the manuscript clearly state its contribution?
  • Are theoretical, practical, and/or policy implications appropriately discussed?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?

I. Academic Presentation

  • Is the manuscript clearly and logically organized?
  • Is the academic language appropriate?
  • Are tables and figures clear and necessary?
  • Are citations and references accurate and relevant?
  • Is the manuscript presented in accordance with the journal's author guidelines?

J. Research and Publication Ethics

Reviewers should report concerns relating to:

  • plagiarism;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • fabricated or falsified data;
  • manipulated results;
  • inappropriate citation practices;
  • citation manipulation;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • unethical research practices; or
  • other forms of research or publication misconduct.

11. Reviewer Recommendation

Reviewers are normally asked to provide one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept
    The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

  2. Minor Revision
    The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not fundamentally affect the study.

  3. Major Revision
    The manuscript requires substantial revisions to its theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, discussion, presentation, or other substantive elements.

  4. Reject
    The manuscript has fundamental problems involving originality, relevance, methodology, scholarly contribution, ethics, or other issues that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

12. Editorial Decision

Editorial decisions are based on:

  • the quality of the manuscript;
  • reviewer assessments;
  • originality and scholarly contribution;
  • methodological rigor;
  • relevance to the journal;
  • ethical considerations; and
  • the independent judgment of the editor.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept;
  • Accept with Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision; or
  • Reject.

The editor is not required to follow the recommendation of any individual reviewer.

Where reviewer reports substantially disagree, the editor may:

  • seek clarification from the reviewers;
  • invite an additional independent reviewer;
  • conduct an additional editorial assessment; or
  • make a decision based on the totality of the evidence.

13. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

  • a revised manuscript; and
  • a detailed response to reviewers' comments.

Authors should respond to each substantive comment individually.

Where authors disagree with a reviewer, they should provide a clear scholarly justification rather than simply dismissing the comment.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to new reviewers at the editor's discretion.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

14. Review Timelines

Reviewers are given a reasonable period to complete their evaluations.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the agreed timeframe, the reviewer should inform the editorial office.

The editor may extend the deadline or appoint an alternative reviewer where necessary.

IEJR does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a predetermined period. Any review-time information published by the journal should reflect actual editorial practice and should not be presented as a guarantee of rapid publication.

The journal aims to minimize unnecessary delays while maintaining the integrity and rigor of the peer review process.

15. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that the decision resulted from:

  • a significant factual or procedural error;
  • a substantial misunderstanding of the manuscript;
  • an undisclosed conflict of interest;
  • demonstrably inappropriate or biased peer review; or
  • a significant violation of the journal's editorial procedure.

An appeal must contain clear academic or procedural grounds.

Appeals that merely disagree with the editor's academic judgment without identifying a substantive error may not be considered.

The Editor-in-Chief will assess the appeal and may seek an independent assessment where appropriate.

The decision following an appeal is normally final.

16. Complaints and Publication Ethics Concerns

IEJR is committed to investigating concerns relating to the integrity of its peer review and publication processes.

Concerns may include:

  • peer reviewer misconduct;
  • breach of confidentiality;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • plagiarism;
  • fabrication or falsification;
  • duplicate publication;
  • citation manipulation;
  • authorship disputes;
  • unethical research practices; or
  • other forms of research and publication misconduct.

The journal will handle such matters in accordance with applicable publication-ethics principles and relevant COPE guidance.

Where appropriate, the journal may request information from authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, or other relevant parties.

17. Editorial Independence and Fairness

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and the suitability of the manuscript for the journal.

Decisions must not be influenced by:

  • nationality;
  • ethnicity;
  • gender;
  • religion;
  • political beliefs;
  • institutional affiliation;
  • academic status;
  • personal relationships; or
  • commercial interests.

IEJR is committed to fair, objective, and non-discriminatory editorial decision-making. The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing state that editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit and should not be affected by the origin or characteristics of authors. 

18. Special Issues and Non-Research Content

Special issues, review articles, conceptual papers, policy papers, case studies, commentaries, editorials, and other forms of scholarly content may be subject to procedures appropriate to their article type.

Any deviation from the standard peer review procedure will be clearly stated on the journal website and/or in the relevant article.

Special issue articles remain subject to appropriate editorial oversight and external peer review where they constitute substantive scholarly research. DOAJ specifically requires special issue content to receive the same editorial oversight and external peer review as regular content. 

19. Reviewer Recognition

IEJR values the voluntary contribution of peer reviewers to the scholarly community.

Subject to confidentiality requirements and applicable journal policy, the journal may recognize reviewers through:

  • certificates of peer review;
  • acknowledgement of reviewer contributions;
  • inclusion in an annual reviewer acknowledgement list; or
  • other appropriate forms of recognition.

Any public acknowledgement will not disclose which reviewer assessed a particular manuscript unless the reviewer has explicitly agreed to such disclosure.

20. Record Keeping

IEJR maintains appropriate records of the peer review and editorial decision-making process.

Records may include:

  • reviewer invitations;
  • reviewer identities;
  • review reports;
  • editorial decisions;
  • author responses;
  • revised manuscripts; and
  • relevant editorial correspondence.

These records are treated as confidential and may be used for editorial quality assurance, publication-ethics investigations, journal evaluation, and indexing or audit purposes.

21. Commitment to Continuous Improvement

IEJR periodically evaluates its peer review procedures to ensure that they remain rigorous, fair, efficient, ethical, and appropriate for the disciplines served by the journal.

The journal may revise this policy in response to developments in scholarly publishing, research ethics, peer review methodology, artificial intelligence, and recommendations from recognized scholarly publishing organizations.

IEJR's peer review system is committed to maintaining the following principles:

  • Rigorous – manuscripts are evaluated by qualified experts;
  • Independent – reviewers are independent from the authors;
  • Fair – decisions are based on scholarly merit;
  • Confidential – manuscript and reviewer information is protected;
  • Constructive – reviews are intended to improve scholarly quality;
  • Ethical – conflicts of interest and misconduct are addressed appropriately;
  • Transparent – the journal publicly explains its peer review procedures; and
  • Accountable – editorial decisions remain subject to established procedures for revision, appeal, and ethical review.