Peer Review Process
The Indonesian Journal of Corruption and Criminal Justice (IJCCJ) applies a robust editorial assessment framework, administered by the Editorial Board in conjunction with independent external referees operating under a double-blind peer review model. Every submission is assessed through this procedure to preserve impartiality and to ensure that editorial determinations rest on demonstrable scholarly quality. Throughout the process, the Editor-in-Chief serves as the principal liaison with authors and holds final responsibility for decisions to accept, reject, or request revision.
Submission Requirements and Preliminary Administrative Screening
Authors must prepare manuscripts in strict conformity with IJCCJ’s prescribed formatting requirements, including the journal’s official article template. Upon submission, each manuscript is subjected to an initial administrative check to verify compliance with core requirements before it may progress to substantive editorial consideration.
Pre-Qualification Editorial Assessment
Once administrative eligibility has been confirmed, the Editor-in-Chief working in collaboration with the Associate Editors undertakes a preliminary evaluation to determine whether the submission is suitable for entry into formal peer review. A manuscript may be declined at this stage, without external review, where one or more of the following grounds applies:
- Misalignment with the journal’s focus and scope: the subject matter falls outside IJCCJ’s stated remit and is better directed to an alternative publication outlet.
- Insufficient scholarly contribution or methodological weakness: the submission fails to meet the journal’s threshold due to, for example, incomplete data; inappropriate, under-justified, or poorly executed methodology; limited originality; negligible contribution to existing knowledge; or a lack of internal coherence between aims, design, evidential basis, and conclusions.
- Non-compliance with author guidelines: the manuscript does not adhere to the journal’s instructions for authors and associated submission standards.
External Peer Review
Submissions that satisfy the pre-qualification threshold are ordinarily referred to two or three suitably qualified reviewers appointed by the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors. Reviewers are expected to provide a recommendation, accompanied by substantive critique and actionable guidance, within three weeks of accepting the invitation to review. Where recommendations diverge substantially, particularly where one reviewer advises rejection and another proposes revision—the Editor-in-Chief may commission an additional review and/or seek further adjudication from relevant members of the Editorial Board in order to secure a balanced and defensible outcome.
Revision Procedures and Author Responsibilities
Where revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) with consolidated reviewer and editorial feedback. Authors must submit a revised version via the journal’s OJS platform within three weeks of receiving the revision notice. Manuscripts returned after the stipulated deadline may be treated as withdrawn; however, authors may request an extension from the Editor-in-Chief, provided the request is made before the revision period expires.
Re-Review and Verification of Amendments
Where reviewers request confirmation of revisions, the amended manuscript may be resubmitted to the original reviewers for further examination. In such circumstances, reviewers are expected to issue a subsequent recommendation, with any additional observations, within three weeks of accepting the re-review request. In parallel, the Editor-in-Chief may refer the revised submission to the Associate Editors to ascertain whether the author(s) have addressed the review points adequately, accurately, and in good faith.
Associate Editorial Recommendation and Rejection at the Revision Stage
Within two weeks, Associate Editors may recommend acceptance, rejection, or further amendment. A manuscript may be rejected at the revision stage where author responses fail to implement required revisions, where engagement with feedback is partial or inadequately evidenced, or where the rebuttal is unsubstantiated, evasive, or otherwise insufficient to address substantive concerns raised by reviewers and/or the Editorial Board.
Decision Notification, Appeals, and Editorial Reconsideration
Where a manuscript is rejected, the Editor-in-Chief will notify the author(s) and provide reasons for the decision. Authors may submit an appeal where they consider the assessment to have been materially unfair, provided that the appeal sets out a clear rationale supported by a reasoned explanation. The Editor-in-Chief will consider the appeal in consultation with the Associate Editor responsible for the submission and will subsequently determine whether the decision should be upheld or reconsidered.
Post-Acceptance Processing and Publication Communication
Following formal acceptance, the Editor-in-Chief forwards the manuscript to the technical editor for layout preparation ahead of the Editorial Board meeting. The Editor-in-Chief then issues an acceptance letter to the author(s), including confirmation of the intended publication issue.