Jurnal Ekonomi Indonesia (JEI) is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, fairness, and credibility of scholarly publications through a rigorous peer-review process. Reviewers play an essential role in evaluating the originality, scientific validity, methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts to the understanding of the Indonesian economy. These guidelines are informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and are intended to promote responsible, objective, transparent, and accountable reviewing practices.
1. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to provide independent, constructive, evidence-based, and impartial assessments of submitted manuscripts. Their evaluations should help the editors make informed editorial decisions and assist authors in improving the quality and clarity of their work. In accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, reviewers should recognize their responsibility to contribute to the integrity of the scholarly record and conduct reviews professionally and ethically.
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts within their areas of expertise and assess whether the research is appropriate for JEI's focus on the development and dynamics of the Indonesian economy. The journal's Focus and Scope should guide the assessment of a manuscript's relevance, contribution, and suitability for publication.
2. Acceptance or Declining of Review Invitations
Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they possess the appropriate subject knowledge, can provide an impartial assessment, and have sufficient time to complete the review within the agreed deadline. If a manuscript falls outside their expertise, or if a competing interest could compromise their impartiality, they should promptly decline the invitation and inform the editor. These responsibilities follow the recommendations in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers should respond to invitations within a reasonable period and notify the editorial office promptly if they are unable to meet the agreed deadline. Where appropriate, they may suggest alternative reviewers whose expertise matches the manuscript, without attempting to influence the editorial outcome. COPE addresses these expectations under its guidance on reviewer timeliness and professional conduct in the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
3. Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss, or share manuscript contents, unpublished findings, supplementary materials, or review correspondence with unauthorized individuals without prior permission from the journal. This requirement is consistent with COPE's guidance on confidentiality in peer review.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal, professional, financial, or competitive advantage. They must also refrain from using confidential manuscript material to disadvantage the authors or other researchers. COPE explicitly addresses the responsible handling of confidential information in its Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential review materials to external artificial intelligence services or other third-party platforms when doing so would disclose confidential information or violate the journal's policies. Any proposed use of AI-assisted tools must comply with the journal's applicable rules and protect manuscript confidentiality, author rights, and research integrity. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, independence, and integrity of their assessments. This requirement is a proposed journal safeguard informed by COPE's principles of confidentiality and responsible peer review; it should be implemented consistently with the journal's applicable AI policy.
4. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback
Reviews must be objective, fair, respectful, and supported by clear reasoning. Reviewers should evaluate the quality of the research rather than the authors' personal characteristics, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, religious beliefs, political views, or other irrelevant considerations. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, hostile language, and unsupported allegations are inappropriate. These expectations are established in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Ethical Editing Guide.
Reviewers should provide specific, actionable comments explaining the strengths and limitations of a manuscript. Criticisms should be accompanied by appropriate reasoning, evidence, methodological explanations, or relevant scholarly references where necessary. Reviewers should distinguish major concerns that affect the validity or contribution of the research from minor issues involving presentation, terminology, formatting, or language. COPE's Ethical Editing Guide advises that reviewers express their views clearly, support their arguments, and avoid defamatory or libellous comments.
5. Assessment Criteria
In reviewing a manuscript submitted to JEI, reviewers should consider the following criteria in light of the journal's Focus and Scope and the Author Guidelines.
- Relevance and scope: Whether the manuscript addresses economic issues relevant to Indonesia and aligns with the journal's scholarly objectives.
- Originality and contribution: Whether the study offers a meaningful contribution to economic theory, empirical evidence, policy analysis, or understanding of the Indonesian economy.
- Literature review: Whether the manuscript engages appropriately with relevant, credible, and sufficiently current literature and identifies the research gap.
- Research methodology: Whether the research design, data sources, sampling strategy where applicable, analytical methods, and assumptions are appropriate and adequately explained.
- Results and interpretation: Whether the findings are clearly presented, supported by the evidence, and interpreted without unsupported causal claims or overgeneralization.
- Discussion and implications: Whether the discussion relates the findings to previous studies and develops justified theoretical, practical, or policy implications.
- Conclusions and limitations: Whether the conclusions follow from the results and acknowledge relevant limitations.
- References and presentation: Whether citations, references, tables, figures, and manuscript structure meet the journal's applicable requirements.
- Research ethics and integrity: Whether the manuscript raises concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed competing interests, or other potential research misconduct.
These criteria are proposed operational guidance for JEI reviewers. Assessments should be consistent with the journal's published Author Guidelines and with COPE's broader expectations for responsible and objective peer review, as described in its Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
6. Competing Interests
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the impartiality of their assessment. Competing interests may be personal, financial, professional, intellectual, institutional, or collaborative. Reviewers should not accept or continue a review if a relevant conflict prevents them from providing an independent assessment. If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting the invitation, they must inform the editor promptly and seek guidance. These requirements follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers should be particularly attentive to recent supervisory relationships, close collaboration, joint research funding, employment at the same institution as an author, personal relationships, and direct academic or commercial competition. Where a conflict may compromise impartiality, the reviewer should disclose the circumstances and allow the editor to determine the appropriate action. COPE discusses these situations in its guidance on bias and competing interests.
7. Research Integrity and Suspected Misconduct
Reviewers should remain alert to possible plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other concerns affecting research integrity. Any concern should be communicated confidentially to the editor, accompanied by specific explanations and supporting evidence where available. Reviewers should not independently investigate allegations beyond their reviewing responsibilities or make unsupported accusations against authors. These practices are consistent with the principles of responsible peer review outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
If a reviewer identifies a substantial ethical concern, they should provide the relevant details to the editorial office and allow the editor to determine whether further assessment is necessary. Editors are responsible for managing concerns according to the journal's publication ethics procedures and applicable COPE guidance. Further information is available through COPE's Core Practices, particularly its guidance on ethical oversight and responding to allegations of misconduct.
8. Use of References and Citation Recommendations
Reviewers may recommend additional references when they are genuinely relevant to the manuscript's argument, methodology, interpretation, or scholarly context. Such recommendations should improve the accuracy, completeness, or quality of the work rather than serve the reviewer's personal interests or artificially increase citations to the reviewer, their colleagues, or a particular journal. Reviewers should explain the scholarly rationale for any substantial reference recommendations. This approach is consistent with COPE's principles of objective assessment and responsible reviewer conduct in the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
9. Timeliness of Reviews
Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the deadline agreed upon with the editorial office. If additional time is needed, reviewers should notify the editor as early as possible and request an extension. If circumstances prevent completion of the review, the reviewer should inform the editor promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made without unnecessary delay to the authors. These expectations are consistent with COPE's recommendations on timeliness in the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
10. Reviewer Recommendations
At the conclusion of the review, reviewers should provide a clear recommendation supported by their comments and assessment of the manuscript. The recommendation should reflect the manuscript's scholarly quality, methodological soundness, relevance, originality, and compliance with applicable ethical requirements. Reviewers should not guarantee publication or present their recommendation as a final editorial decision. The final decision rests with the journal's authorized editor, taking into account the review reports and the journal's editorial policies. This arrangement is consistent with COPE's guidance on the responsibilities of reviewers and editors in the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
The following recommendations may be used by JEI as a proposed standard for its review workflow:
- Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
- Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially publishable after limited corrections or clarifications.
- Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements and further evaluation before a publication decision can be made.
- Reject: The manuscript has fundamental limitations, insufficient scholarly contribution, significant methodological weaknesses, serious ethical concerns, or other problems that make it unsuitable for publication.
These categories are proposed for consistent editorial practice and should be aligned with the review options available in the JEI submission system. The editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editor rather than the reviewer alone.
11. Reviewer Recognition and Accountability
JEI values the time and scholarly contribution of its reviewers. The journal may acknowledge reviewers' contributions through appropriate forms of recognition, subject to reviewer consent, confidentiality requirements, and the journal's policies. Reviewer recognition must not compromise the confidentiality of individual manuscripts or reveal identities in cases where the review model requires anonymity. COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers discuss accountability and the appropriate recognition of individuals who contribute to peer review.
12. Compliance with COPE Principles
JEI encourages reviewers to follow internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and responsible peer review. These guidelines are informed by COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the COPE Core Practices, and the COPE Ethical Editing Guide. These resources provide guidance for maintaining confidentiality, objectivity, independence, transparency, and accountability throughout the peer-review process.
By accepting a review invitation from JEI, reviewers are expected to comply with these guidelines, disclose relevant competing interests, safeguard confidential materials, provide constructive and evidence-based feedback, and communicate professionally with the editorial office. Any questions concerning reviewer responsibilities or ethical issues arising during the review should be directed to the journal's editorial office through its official contact page.