```smarty

Submit Artikel Lihat Arsip

```

Peer Review Process

 

JURMAKOMBIS publishes scholarly articles twice a year, in April and October. Every manuscript considered for publication undergoes a peer review process managed by the Editorial Board, involving internal and/or external reviewers selected according to their expertise and editorial requirements.

1. Initial Screening

1.1. Every manuscript is screened by the Editorial Board to determine whether it aligns with the focus and scope of JURMAKOMBIS.

1.2. Editors assess the manuscript's compliance with the Author Guidelines and Journal Template, including its structure, formatting, completeness, and technical requirements.

1.3. Editors conduct a preliminary assessment of the manuscript's academic suitability, originality, relevance, and substantive quality.

1.4. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements may be returned to the authors for revision before proceeding to the peer review stage.

2. Similarity Check

During the initial editorial stage, manuscripts are screened for textual similarity using Turnitin. This process aims to identify similarities with other sources and support academic integrity. Similarity results are assessed in the context of the sources and nature of the similarities identified, rather than solely on the basis of the similarity percentage.

Manuscripts that comply with the journal's similarity requirements may proceed to peer review. If similarities requiring revision or clarification are identified, the editor may return the manuscript to the authors.

3. Editorial Assessment and Review Documentation

3.1. Editors document their assessments using an evaluation form or the JURMAKOMBIS editorial system.

3.2. The assessment covers the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope, substantive quality, methodological soundness, originality, and compliance with the journal's guidelines.

3.3. Manuscripts that do not yet meet the requirements may be returned to the authors for revision.

3.4. Manuscripts that satisfy the initial requirements are forwarded to reviewers whose expertise and competencies are relevant to the subject matter.

4. Reviewer Selection

Editors appoint internal and/or external reviewers based on subject-matter expertise, competence, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. The entire review process is conducted electronically.

Reviewers are required to:

• Possess relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
• Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all information obtained during the review process.
• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor.
• Assess the manuscript's scholarly quality objectively, without being influenced by the authors' personal identities.

5. Peer Review Process

Reviewers evaluate the substance of the article and provide constructive comments on the state of the art, research problem, conceptual and theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, discussion, conclusions, references, and the article's contribution to the development of management, communication, and business scholarship, in accordance with the journal's focus and scope.

Reviewers may also identify relevant documents, concepts, theories, previous research findings, or literature that have not been cited by the authors.

6. Blind Review Mechanism

JURMAKOMBIS applies a single-blind review mechanism and is gradually developing the implementation of double-blind review. Under the single-blind review mechanism, the reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors. Under the double-blind review mechanism, the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the evaluation process.

7. Reviewer Ethics

7.1. Reviews must be conducted objectively, professionally, and on the basis of sound scholarly arguments.

7.2. Criticism must focus on the content of the manuscript rather than the authors personally.

7.3. Personal, demeaning, discriminatory, or irrelevant criticism constitutes unethical conduct.

7.4. Reviewers must not use data, ideas, methods, or findings from a manuscript for personal gain without appropriate authorization.

7.5. Reviewers who consider themselves insufficiently qualified to assess a manuscript or who are unable to complete a review within the specified deadline must promptly inform the editor.

8. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Upon completion of the review process, the editor considers the initial screening results, reviewers' recommendations, the article's scholarly validity, and its potential contributions to researchers, academics, students, and practitioners.

Editorial decisions may include:

• Accept — the article is accepted for publication.
• Minor Revision — the article requires limited revisions.
• Major Revision — the article requires substantial revisions and may be sent back to the reviewers for further evaluation.
• Reject — the article does not meet the journal's academic standards, substantive quality requirements, relevance criteria, or other publication requirements.

9. Manuscript Revision

Authors are required to respond to reviewers' comments and revise their manuscripts in accordance with the editor's instructions. Where necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

10. Final Stage: Acceptance, Copyediting, and Publication

Articles that receive an acceptance decision and satisfy all editorial requirements proceed to copyediting and production. The articles are subsequently published on the official JURMAKOMBIS website in accordance with the journal's publication schedule.

11. Confidentiality and Documentation

Manuscripts, reviewers' identities, review reports, comments, and editorial correspondence are kept confidential in accordance with the JURMAKOMBIS Publication Ethics Code. Review documentation is maintained to support accountability, transparency in the editorial process, and continuous improvement in journal quality.

12. Final Provisions

The JURMAKOMBIS Peer Review Process policy forms part of the journal's editorial policies and publication ethics framework. This policy may be reviewed and updated periodically in response to developments in scholarly publishing standards.