Review Policy

PEER REVIEW POLICY

1. Introduction

Wacana Equiliberium (Jurnal Pemikiran Penelitian Ekonomi) is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, originality, and credibility of scholarly publications through a rigorous, fair, transparent, and independent peer-review process.

Peer review serves as an essential mechanism for evaluating the scientific merit, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, and relevance of manuscripts submitted to the journal. This process ensures that published articles meet established academic standards and contribute meaningfully to the advancement of knowledge in economics, accounting, finance, taxation, auditing, management, business, and related disciplines.

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

This policy outlines the principles, procedures, evaluation criteria, responsibilities, and ethical standards governing peer review. It applies to all submitted manuscripts, reviewers, editors, and other individuals involved in the editorial evaluation process.

2. Peer Review Model

Wacana Equiliberium implements a double-blind peer-review system to promote impartiality, academic independence, and fairness in manuscript evaluation.

Under this system, reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities during the evaluation process.

All manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter and research methodology.

The journal aims to obtain evaluations from at least two qualified reviewers for each manuscript proceeding to external peer review.

Reviewers are selected primarily on the basis of their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication experience, independence, and ability to provide objective and constructive assessments.

Whenever practicable, reviewers are selected from institutions different from those of the authors to minimize institutional bias and potential conflicts of interest.

The editorial team is responsible for maintaining reviewer anonymity, protecting confidential information, and ensuring that evaluation procedures are conducted professionally and consistently.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Every manuscript submitted through the journal's online submission system undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor before entering external peer review.

The preliminary screening evaluates whether the manuscript:

Falls within the journal's aims and scope.
Complies with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript preparation requirements.
Demonstrates sufficient originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution.
Presents clear research objectives and an appropriate methodological approach.
Meets basic standards of academic writing, referencing, and research reporting.
Complies with publication ethics, authorship requirements, and research integrity principles.
Contains no apparent plagiarism, duplicate publication, or serious ethical irregularities.

Similarity-checking software and other editorial screening tools may assist this assessment. However, screening results must be interpreted through human editorial judgment rather than relying exclusively on automated similarity scores.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's fundamental requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected without external peer review.

Manuscripts that successfully complete the screening stage proceed to reviewer assignment.

4. Reviewer Selection and Appointment

Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief, section editor, or designated handling editor based on their expertise and suitability for evaluating the submitted manuscript.

Reviewer selection considers disciplinary specialization, research methodology, academic experience, publication records, institutional independence, and potential conflicts of interest.

Selected reviewers are expected to possess sufficient competence to evaluate the manuscript's scientific content, theoretical foundations, research design, analytical procedures, and interpretation of findings.

Reviewers must disclose any financial, personal, professional, academic, or institutional relationships that could compromise their independence or create an appearance of bias.

Individuals with significant conflicts of interest must decline the review invitation or notify the handling editor before accepting the assignment.

Reviewers are expected to accept assignments only when they have adequate expertise and sufficient time to provide a thorough and constructive evaluation.

If a reviewer declines an invitation, becomes unavailable, or fails to complete the evaluation, the editorial team may appoint an alternative reviewer.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively, systematically, and constructively using recognized standards of scholarly quality.

The principal evaluation criteria include:

5.1 Originality and Scientific Contribution

The manuscript should present original research findings, theoretical insights, methodological developments, or critical scholarly contributions. Reviewers should evaluate whether the study addresses a meaningful research gap and advances existing knowledge.

5.2 Relevance to the Journal's Scope

The research topic, objectives, and findings must align with the disciplinary focus of Wacana Equiliberium and demonstrate relevance to the development of economic, accounting, financial, management, business, or related scholarship.

5.3 Theoretical Foundation and Literature Review

The manuscript should demonstrate an adequate understanding of relevant theories, concepts, and previous studies. The literature review should critically establish the research problem, identify knowledge gaps, and provide a coherent foundation for the research objectives or hypotheses.

5.4 Research Methodology

The research design, sampling procedures, data collection methods, measurement instruments, and analytical techniques must be appropriate for addressing the research questions.

Reviewers should consider the validity, reliability, transparency, reproducibility, and ethical appropriateness of the research methodology.

5.5 Results and Data Analysis

Research findings must be presented accurately, systematically, and consistently with the methods employed.

Statistical analyses, qualitative interpretations, empirical evidence, and other analytical procedures should be scientifically appropriate and sufficiently explained.

5.6 Discussion and Interpretation

The discussion should critically interpret the findings, relate them to existing literature and theoretical perspectives, and explain their scientific or practical implications.

Conclusions and interpretations must be supported by the evidence presented and should not exceed the limitations of the research design.

5.7 Conclusions and Implications

The conclusions should address the research objectives, summarize the principal findings, and clearly identify the study's theoretical, methodological, practical, or policy implications.

Limitations and recommendations for future research should be presented when appropriate.

5.8 References and Academic Writing

The manuscript should use relevant, credible, and appropriately cited scholarly references.

Reviewers should also consider the clarity, organization, coherence, readability, and overall quality of academic presentation.

5.9 Research Ethics and Integrity

Reviewers should identify potential concerns involving plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, or misleading reporting.

Concerns about research integrity must be communicated confidentially to the editor for appropriate assessment.

6. Peer Review Procedures

The journal follows a structured editorial and peer-review process consisting of the following stages.

Stage 1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system in accordance with the applicable author guidelines.

Stage 2. Initial Editorial Assessment

The editorial team examines the manuscript for scope alignment, completeness, originality, academic quality, and compliance with publication ethics.

Stage 3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to independent reviewers with relevant expertise under the double-blind peer-review system.

Stage 4. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript against the journal's scientific and ethical standards and submit written comments and recommendations through the editorial system.

Stage 5. Editorial Assessment and Decision

The handling editor evaluates the reviewer reports, considers their recommendations, and determines the appropriate editorial action.

Stage 6. Author Revision

When revisions are requested, authors must address reviewer and editorial comments and submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining the changes made.

Stage 7. Re-evaluation

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the handling editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Stage 8. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor makes the final publication decision based on the manuscript's academic quality, reviewer assessments, ethical compliance, and satisfactory completion of required revisions.

Stage 9. Publication Preparation

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, and publication in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures.

7. Editorial Decisions

Following editorial evaluation and peer review, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's publication standards and requires no substantive additional revision.
Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication but requires limited corrections, clarifications, or improvements.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements in theoretical development, methodology, analysis, interpretation, presentation, or other essential components before further consideration.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or contains fundamental deficiencies that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

A decision to request revision does not guarantee subsequent acceptance.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized handling editor.

When reviewer evaluations differ substantially, the editorial team may seek an additional independent review or undertake further editorial assessment before reaching a decision.

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, originality, relevance, and ethical compliance rather than personal, institutional, political, or commercial considerations.

8. Revision and Re-review Procedures

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to respond carefully and systematically to all substantive reviewer and editor comments.

Revised submissions should include an updated manuscript and a point-by-point response indicating how each comment has been addressed.

Where authors disagree with specific reviewer recommendations, they should provide clear, respectful, and scientifically justified explanations.

The editorial team evaluates whether the revisions adequately resolve the identified concerns.

Manuscripts requiring major revision may undergo additional review by the original reviewers or other qualified experts. Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the handling editor when appropriate.

Additional revision rounds may be requested when necessary to ensure that the manuscript satisfies the journal's scientific and ethical standards.

Failure to address essential concerns, provide requested documentation, or comply with revision requirements may result in rejection.

9. Responsibilities and Ethical Standards of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of the journal.

Reviewers are expected to fulfill the following responsibilities:

Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts and associated materials as confidential and refrain from unauthorized disclosure, distribution, or discussion.
Objectivity: Evaluate manuscripts fairly and impartially based on scientific merit without personal criticism or discriminatory considerations.
Constructive Feedback: Provide specific, evidence-based, respectful, and actionable recommendations to improve manuscript quality.
Professional Competence: Accept review assignments only when appropriately qualified to evaluate the subject matter and methodology.
Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed period or promptly inform the editor when delays or difficulties arise.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Declare any relationships or interests that could influence the impartiality of the assessment.
Research Integrity: Report suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, citation misconduct, ethical violations, or substantial overlap with existing publications.
Proper Citation Practices: Recommend references only when scientifically relevant and avoid coercive or unnecessary citation requests.
Responsible AI Use: Comply with the journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, including confidentiality requirements and restrictions on unauthorized AI-assisted manuscript evaluation.

Reviewers must not exploit unpublished information, research ideas, datasets, or findings obtained during peer review for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must not delegate their assignments to other individuals without prior editorial authorization.

10. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring that the peer-review process is fair, independent, confidential, consistent, and professionally managed.

Editorial responsibilities include selecting qualified reviewers, assessing potential conflicts of interest, evaluating reviewer reports, monitoring the progress of manuscripts, and communicating editorial decisions clearly to authors.

Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and reviewer identities throughout the editorial process.

Editorial decisions must be guided by the scientific quality and relevance of manuscripts rather than authors' institutional affiliations, professional status, nationality, gender, personal beliefs, or other characteristics unrelated to scholarly merit.

Editors must not use unpublished manuscript content for personal research or professional benefit without explicit authorization.

When handling manuscripts involving editorial board members, colleagues, or individuals with whom an editor has a significant relationship, the journal must assign editorial responsibility to an independent editor to minimize potential conflicts of interest.

Editors should also ensure that allegations of publication misconduct are assessed fairly and consistently with the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

11. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

All manuscripts undergoing peer review are considered confidential scholarly documents.

Authors' identities, reviewers' identities, unpublished data, research findings, editorial communications, and reviewer reports must be protected from unauthorized disclosure.

Reviewers and editors are prohibited from distributing manuscripts or using confidential information for purposes unrelated to editorial evaluation.

Potential conflicts of interest may arise from financial relationships, institutional connections, research collaborations, personal relationships, academic competition, or other circumstances that could affect impartiality.

Individuals involved in the editorial process must promptly disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

The editorial team may replace a reviewer, reassign editorial responsibility, or implement other appropriate safeguards when a conflict could compromise the independence or credibility of the review process.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the completion of peer review, regardless of whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Wacana Equiliberium recognizes that AI-assisted technologies may support certain editorial and administrative activities. However, their use must comply with the journal's AI Policy and established principles of confidentiality, accountability, and human oversight.

Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, confidential research data, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence to external AI systems without appropriate authorization and safeguards.

AI tools must not replace independent scholarly evaluation or make autonomous decisions regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection.

Automated systems used for language assessment, similarity screening, or other editorial support must be interpreted critically and must not serve as the sole basis for allegations of misconduct.

Human reviewers and editors retain full responsibility for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of their assessments and decisions.

Any authorized substantive use of AI during manuscript evaluation must be disclosed to the editorial team.

13. Appeals, Complaints, and Review Integrity

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that an editorial decision was based on a substantial factual misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, undisclosed conflict of interest, or other significant concern.

Appeals must identify the specific grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant supporting information. Disagreement with reviewer opinions alone does not automatically justify reconsideration.

The Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor, where appropriate, will evaluate the appeal and determine whether further assessment, additional review, or confirmation of the original decision is warranted.

Complaints concerning reviewer misconduct, editorial bias, breaches of confidentiality, manipulated peer review, or other ethical concerns will be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy and relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.

The journal does not tolerate fabricated reviewer identities, fraudulent reviewer reports, coercive citation practices, reviewer impersonation, or attempts to manipulate editorial decisions.

Appropriate corrective actions may include reviewer replacement, additional independent assessment, rejection of a manuscript, correction of the scholarly record, or other measures proportionate to the circumstances.

All complaints and appeals will be handled fairly, confidentially, and without retaliation against individuals raising concerns in good faith.

14. Continuous Improvement and Policy Review

Wacana Equiliberium is committed to continuously improving the effectiveness, fairness, transparency, and integrity of its peer-review process.

The editorial team may periodically evaluate reviewer performance, editorial procedures, manuscript processing practices, and the consistency of review standards.

This policy may be updated in response to developments in scholarly publishing, research integrity standards, publication technology, and relevant ethical guidelines.

The journal encourages authors, reviewers, and editors to contribute constructively to maintaining a credible and academically rigorous peer-review environment.

This Peer Review Policy is informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and should be read in conjunction with the journal's Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.