Peer Review Policy and Process
DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW POLICY:
Journal of Sawala Administrasi Negara has adopted a double blind peer review policy, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process. Please remove all identifying features from the main document itself, ensuring that Authors' identity is not revealed. However, this does not preclude Authors from citing their own works. However, Authors must cite their works in a manner that does not make explicit their identity.
Acceptable: "Dunn (2013) has indicated that . . ."
Acceptable: "Some scholars have indicated that . . . (e.g., Wilson, 2013; Moore & Stanfrd, 2020)"
All contributions will be initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final.
DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Submission to Editorial Head Office:
Please note that Editorial Board of the journal will be very selective, accepting only the articles on the basis of scholarly merit, research significance, research integrity and complete compliance with the journal style guidelines (APA).
Journal Sawala Administrasi Negara Editorial Board respects and promotes all authors and contributors on the basis of research ability and experience without considering race, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, financial means, or any of narrow frames of reference. All new submissions to the journal are assessed in two stages.
THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The peer review process can be broadly summarized into 8 steps. See below.
1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. For Indonesia contributors, and international scholars/ contributors via an online system
2. Editorial Office Assessment
The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
4. Invitation to Reviewers
The Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate to review the article. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is 2, but there is some variation between journals.
5. Review is Conducted
The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
6. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The Editor-in-Chief or Editorial BOARD considers all of the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
7. The Decision is Communicated
The Editor-in-Chief sends a decision email, including any relevant reviewer comments, to the author. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.
8. Last Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Editor-in-Chief may include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers would also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, this follow-up review might be done by the Editor-in-Chief.