Peer Review Policy and Process

Pajak dan Manajemen Keuangan (PAJAMKEU) applies an Open Peer Review process to enhance transparency and trust in scholarly publishing. This model aims to improve transparency, accountability, and the overall quality of the peer-review process, thereby benefiting authors, reviewers, and the wider academic community.

Open Peer Review Principles

1. Transparent Reviewer Identity

The identities of reviewers are disclosed to authors to promote accountability and constructive feedback.

2. Publicly Accessible Reviews

Review reports are made publicly available alongside published articles, allowing readers to view the peer review process and understand the strengths and weaknesses identified by the reviewers.

3. Interactive Review

Authors and reviewers can engage in open dialogue during the review process, fostering collaboration and improving the quality of the manuscript.

4. Reviewer Acknowledgment

Reviewers have the option to sign their reviews and receive acknowledgment for their contributions to the peer review process.

5. Ethical Standards

All participants are expected to adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring that the review process is fair, respectful, and free from bias.

Review Process Stages

1

Submission and Technical Review

After submission, the manuscript undergoes a technical review to ensure it complies with the journal’s formatting and ethical guidelines.

2

Initial Editorial Review

The editorial team conducts an initial review to assess the manuscript’s suitability and alignment with the journal’s scope.

3

Assignment to an Editor

If deemed suitable, the manuscript is assigned to an editor who oversees the peer review process.

4

Selection of Reviewers

The editor identifies and contacts reviewers who are experts in the relevant field to evaluate the manuscript.

5

Review Process

Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendations regarding the manuscript’s quality, validity, and contribution to the field.

6

Author Revisions

Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the author may be asked to revise the manuscript. This step may involve several rounds of revisions and re-evaluation.

7

Final Decision

The editor makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the authors’ revisions. Possible outcomes are:

  • Accepted as is: The journal will publish the paper in its original form.
  • Accepted with Minor Revisions: The journal will publish the paper and ask the author to make minor revisions within a specified timeframe.
  • Accepted with Major Revisions: The journal will publish the paper provided the author makes the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editor within a specified timeframe.
  • Resubmit (Conditional Rejection): The journal is willing to reconsider the manuscript in another decision round after the author makes major revisions.
  • Rejected (Absolute Rejection): The journal will not publish the manuscript or reconsider it even if the author makes major revisions.
8

Publication

Accepted manuscripts will proceed to the publication stage, where they will undergo copyediting and formatting before being published in the journal.

Plagiarism screening of manuscripts submitted to this journal is conducted using the

Turnitin Application.