Panduan Peninjauan

Jurnal Riset Administrasi Publik (JURAP) applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific contribution of every manuscript submitted to the journal. Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the academic integrity and publication standards of the journal.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of manuscripts based on the following guidelines:

 1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and professionally.
  • Maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and review process.
  • Provide constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
  • Identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors.
  • Inform the editor of any similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other published works.
  • Complete the review process within the specified review period.

 2. Review Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following aspects:

a. Relevance to Journal Scope

Evaluate whether the manuscript fits within the scope of public administration, governance, and public policy studies covered by JPAP.

b. Originality and Contribution

Assess the novelty, originality, and contribution of the study to the development of public administration and policy knowledge.

c. Title and Abstract

Review whether the title accurately reflects the content and whether the abstract clearly summarizes the objectives, methods, findings, and conclusions.

d. Literature Review

Assess the adequacy, relevance, and currency of the literature used to support the study.

e. Research Methodology

Evaluate the appropriateness and clarity of the research design, data collection methods, analytical techniques, and validity of the study.

f. Results and Discussion

Review whether the findings are clearly presented and logically discussed in relation to theory and previous studies.

g. Conclusion

Assess whether the conclusions are supported by the findings and whether practical or theoretical implications are clearly stated.

h. Language and Writing Quality

Evaluate the clarity, coherence, grammar, and academic writing style of the manuscript.

i. References

Assess the relevance, completeness, consistency, and recency of the references used.

 3. Reviewer Recommendations

At the end of the review process, reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept Submission
  • Revisions Required
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Resubmit Elsewhere
  • Decline Submission
  • See Comments

Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear justifications and detailed comments for their recommendations.

 4. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers must adhere to publication ethics by:

  • Avoiding conflicts of interest.
  • Treating all manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Not using unpublished materials disclosed in the manuscript for personal research.
  • Reporting suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research practices to the editor.

 

5. Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Riset Administrasi Publik (JURAP) undergo an initial editorial screening before being assigned to reviewers. The review process follows a double-blind review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to maintain fairness and objectivity.

The editorial board reserves the right to make the final decision regarding manuscript acceptance based on reviewers’ recommendations and editorial considerations.