Peer Review Policy

Indonesian Tax Justice Review (ITJR) applies a rigorous, independent, and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the originality, academic quality, methodological rigor, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts submitted for publication.

Peer review is a fundamental component of the journal's commitment to academic integrity, editorial independence, methodological rigor, and responsible scholarly communication. All manuscripts are evaluated according to academic merit and relevance to the journal's focus and scope, without discrimination based on authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, geographic location, professional status, or other non-academic characteristics.

Given the interdisciplinary character of tax justice research, the journal may draw upon expertise from tax law, economics, public finance, accounting, political economy, public policy, governance, human rights, sociology, and related disciplines.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

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

The editorial team evaluates whether the manuscript:

falls within the journal's focus and scope;
presents a clearly defined research question, problem, or scholarly argument;
demonstrates originality and academic significance;
engages substantively with relevant national and international literature;
applies an appropriate research design and methodology;
demonstrates sufficient analytical depth;
meets the journal's basic structural and formatting requirements;
complies with applicable research and publication ethics; and
makes a potentially meaningful contribution to scholarship concerning taxation, fiscal governance, or tax justice.

Manuscripts may be rejected at the initial stage where they are clearly outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scholarly development, or fail to meet fundamental academic requirements.

An initial editorial rejection does not necessarily constitute a judgment on the validity or practical value of the subject matter; it indicates that the submission does not sufficiently meet the journal's publication criteria.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally subjected to a double-blind peer review process.

Under this system:

the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers; and
the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

Authors are required to prepare manuscripts in a manner that minimizes unnecessary disclosure of their identity, institutional affiliation, or other identifying information.

The journal takes reasonable measures to maintain reviewer and author confidentiality throughout the review process. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized research areas or where a manuscript has been previously presented, published as a working paper, or otherwise publicly disseminated.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor based on the subject matter and methodological characteristics of the manuscript.

Depending on the research, reviewers may be selected from areas including:

tax law;
fiscal and public finance;
economics;
public policy;
accounting and taxation;
international taxation;
political economy;
public administration;
governance;
human rights;
socio-legal studies; and
related fields.

Reviewers should possess appropriate scholarly expertise and demonstrate the ability to provide an independent, rigorous, constructive, and evidence-based assessment.

Where appropriate, the journal may appoint reviewers from different disciplinary backgrounds to ensure that interdisciplinary manuscripts are assessed from relevant perspectives.

4. Number of Reviewers

As a general policy, manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

An additional reviewer may be appointed when:

reviewer recommendations substantially conflict;
the manuscript involves specialized technical, legal, economic, or methodological questions;
a reviewer withdraws from the review process;
substantial methodological concerns require additional assessment; or
the editor determines that an additional independent opinion is necessary.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editorial team.

5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are generally requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

originality and novelty;
significance and relevance of the research problem;
clarity of research questions or objectives;
strength of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
engagement with relevant scholarly literature;
appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
validity and reliability of evidence or data;
quality of legal, economic, fiscal, or institutional analysis;
coherence and consistency of the argument;
quality of interpretation and discussion;
relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
ethical considerations;
clarity and organization of the manuscript;
contribution to existing scholarship; and
potential implications for taxation, public policy, fiscal governance, or justice.

6. Tax Law and Legal Research

For manuscripts primarily addressing tax law, reviewers may additionally assess:

accuracy and coherence of legal reasoning;
interpretation of legislation and regulations;
use of case law and judicial decisions where relevant;
engagement with legal doctrine;
treatment of constitutional and administrative principles;
analysis of taxpayer rights and state fiscal authority;
legal certainty and due process;
comparative legal reasoning where applicable; and
contribution to tax jurisprudence or legal scholarship.

Legal analysis should demonstrate more than a descriptive account of statutory provisions and should provide an identifiable analytical, theoretical, comparative, or normative contribution.

7. Economic, Fiscal, and Quantitative Research

For empirical, economic, or quantitative manuscripts, reviewers may additionally assess:

appropriateness of the research design;
quality and relevance of datasets;
transparency of data sources;
validity of variables and measurements;
appropriateness of econometric or statistical methods;
robustness of findings;
treatment of limitations;
reproducibility or transparency where applicable; and
consistency between empirical findings and conclusions.

Authors are expected to avoid overstating causal claims where the research design does not support such conclusions.

8. Tax Justice and Distributional Analysis

Because tax justice constitutes a central intellectual concern of the journal, reviewers may assess whether manuscripts adequately consider relevant dimensions of justice, including:

fairness of tax burdens;
distributional consequences;
equality and non-discrimination;
progressive or regressive effects;
impact on vulnerable populations;
intergenerational considerations;
regional or spatial disparities;
relationship between taxation and social protection;
access to public goods and services; and
implications for democratic accountability and fiscal legitimacy.

A manuscript need not adopt a particular normative position. However, where justice claims are made, they should be supported by appropriate theoretical reasoning and scholarly evidence.

9. International and Comparative Tax Research

For manuscripts concerning international or comparative taxation, reviewers may consider:

appropriateness of the comparative framework;
selection and justification of jurisdictions;
comparability of legal or economic systems;
treatment of international tax instruments;
cross-border taxation issues;
international tax cooperation;
multinational enterprise taxation;
tax competition;
tax avoidance and evasion; and
relevance to broader debates on global tax governance.

Comparative studies should move beyond merely describing differences between jurisdictions and should identify meaningful analytical, theoretical, or policy implications.

10. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept — the manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minimal editorial corrections.
Minor Revision — limited revisions are required before publication.
Major Revision — substantial revisions are required and further peer review may be necessary.
Reject and Resubmit — the manuscript demonstrates potential but requires substantial redevelopment and should be submitted as a new manuscript.
Reject — the manuscript does not meet the journal's standards concerning originality, rigor, relevance, methodology, or scholarly contribution.

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

11. Editorial Decision

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

reviewer reports;
academic quality and originality;
methodological and theoretical considerations;
legal, economic, or empirical validity where applicable;
relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
ethical considerations; and
potential contribution to international scholarship.

Editorial decisions are not determined solely by the recommendation of a single reviewer or by a mechanical majority vote.

12. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

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

Authors should explain how substantive comments have been addressed and provide an academic justification where they disagree with a reviewer recommendation.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by new reviewers at the discretion of the editor.

13. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and associated materials as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

disclose the manuscript or its contents to unauthorized persons;
share unpublished data, research findings, or legal analysis;
use unpublished information for personal or professional benefit;
reproduce or distribute substantial portions of the manuscript;
contact the authors directly regarding the submission; or
disclose their identity as a reviewer without authorization.

Reviewer reports should be professional, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful.

14. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Reviewers should decline an assignment if they:

have a close personal or professional relationship with an author;
have recently collaborated with an author;
are affiliated with the same institution as an author;
have a significant financial or professional interest in the research;
are working on a directly competing study;
have a legal, commercial, or institutional interest in the outcome; or
have another circumstance that could reasonably compromise independent judgment.

Editors are subject to equivalent conflict-of-interest requirements and must recuse themselves where appropriate.

15. Reviewer Conduct and Academic Integrity

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of academic and professional conduct.

Reviewer comments must not contain:

personal attacks;
discriminatory or prejudicial language;
defamatory statements;
irrelevant ideological judgments; or
demands unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers should distinguish between legitimate scholarly disagreement and deficiencies in academic quality.

Reviewers should not pressure authors to cite the reviewer's own publications unless such citations are demonstrably relevant and academically justified.

Reviewers are encouraged to identify potential:

plagiarism;
fabricated or manipulated data;
inappropriate citation practices;
unsupported legal or empirical claims;
methodological weaknesses;
undisclosed conflicts of interest; and
other research integrity concerns.

16. Legal and Regulatory Accuracy

Where manuscripts analyze legislation, regulations, judicial decisions, tax treaties, administrative policies, or other legal materials, reviewers should assess the accuracy and appropriate interpretation of such materials.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that legal and regulatory references are accurate and appropriately contextualized.

Where tax rules or regulations are time-sensitive, authors should clearly identify the relevant legal period and jurisdiction to avoid ambiguity.

17. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, unpublished data, legal analysis, and other research materials.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscript content, unpublished datasets, proprietary information, or protected materials to publicly accessible or third-party artificial intelligence systems where doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, or research integrity.

Reviewers remain responsible for the confidentiality and scholarly integrity of their review reports.

18. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently on the basis of academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, scholarly significance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

commercial interests;
political pressure;
government or institutional influence;
personal relationships;
financial interests;
ideological preferences;
nationality or geographic origin;
institutional prestige; or
anticipated commercial or reputational benefits.

The editorial team retains independent responsibility for the integrity of the publication process.

19. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they have reasonable grounds to believe that:

a significant factual error occurred in the review process;
a reviewer had an undisclosed conflict of interest;
the manuscript was assessed on grounds unrelated to academic merit; or
the established peer review procedure was materially violated.

Appeals must provide a clear, reasoned explanation and, where possible, supporting evidence.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately independent editor will review the appeal. Where necessary, an additional independent assessment may be obtained.

An appeal does not automatically result in reconsideration or reversal of the original decision.

20. Post-Publication Concerns

The journal recognizes that peer review cannot eliminate all possible errors or research integrity concerns.

Substantive concerns arising after publication may be investigated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy.

Depending on the outcome of an investigation, the journal may publish:

a correction;
an editorial note;
an expression of concern; or
a retraction.

Such actions are undertaken to preserve the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record.

21. Review Timeline

The journal seeks to maintain an efficient review process while prioritizing rigorous academic assessment.

As a general target, the journal aims to:

complete initial editorial screening within approximately 2–4 weeks;
obtain external peer reviews within approximately 4–8 weeks, where reviewer availability permits; and
communicate editorial decisions to authors as promptly as reasonably possible.

These timelines are indicative rather than guaranteed and may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and other editorial circumstances.

22. Final Editorial Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for editorial decisions and for ensuring that the peer review process is conducted fairly, independently, consistently, and ethically.

The journal considers peer review to be a shared scholarly responsibility among authors, reviewers, editors, and the wider academic community.

Through rigorous double-blind peer review, Indonesian Tax Justice Review seeks to ensure that published research makes an original, credible, methodologically rigorous, and substantive contribution to international scholarship on taxation, fiscal governance, and tax justice.