Peer Review Process

EMAS: Jurnal Ekonomi, Manajemen dan Bisnis is committed to maintaining the integrity, objectivity, confidentiality, transparency, and scientific quality of its editorial and peer-review process. Publication decisions are based exclusively on the scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts to the journal's aims and scope.

All scholarly manuscripts considered for publication must undergo editorial screening and independent peer review. No research manuscript will be accepted for publication solely on the basis of initial editorial evaluation without undergoing the required peer-review process.

EMAS applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor before being sent for external peer review.

The initial editorial screening assesses:

  • conformity with the aims and scope of EMAS;
  • completeness of the manuscript and submission metadata;
  • originality and potential scholarly contribution;
  • basic scientific and methodological adequacy;
  • compliance with the Author Guidelines;
  • compliance with publication ethics and research-ethics requirements;
  • authorship and contributorship information;
  • ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable;
  • conflict-of-interest and funding disclosures;
  • data-availability information, where applicable;
  • disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence, where applicable; and
  • similarity with previously published works.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, methodologically inappropriate, lack sufficient scientific contribution, or present significant ethical or research-integrity concerns may be desk rejected without external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening proceed to independent peer review. Passing the initial screening does not imply acceptance for publication.

2. Similarity and Originality Screening

All manuscripts are screened for similarity and potential textual overlap before being sent for external peer review using an appropriate similarity-detection system.

Similarity reports are evaluated qualitatively by the editorial team. A similarity percentage alone is not considered definitive evidence of plagiarism. Editors assess the nature, source, location, and extent of overlapping material, including inappropriate paraphrasing, unattributed copying, self-plagiarism, and redundant publication.

Similarity screening may be repeated following revision or before final acceptance whenever considered necessary by the editor.

Manuscripts suspected of plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabricated or falsified information, inappropriate authorship, simultaneous submission, or other forms of research misconduct will be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct Policy.

3. Type of Peer Review

EMAS applies a double-blind peer-review process.

The identities and affiliations of the authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Authors are required to prepare the anonymized manuscript file so that it does not contain information that could directly reveal the authors' identities. Author names, affiliations, correspondence details, acknowledgements, and other identifying information are managed separately through the journal submission system.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors during the review process.

4. Selection and Qualification of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are selected based on their expertise and scholarly record relevant to the subject, theoretical perspective, methodology, and scientific context of the manuscript.

Reviewers should:

  • possess relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript;
  • have a verifiable scholarly publication record relevant to the journal's field;
  • be independent from the authors and the editorial handling of the manuscript;
  • have no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the review;
  • provide substantive and constructive scientific evaluations; and
  • comply with the journal's policies regarding confidentiality, research integrity, and peer-review ethics.

EMAS seeks to involve reviewers from diverse institutions and, where appropriate, different countries to strengthen the independence and breadth of scientific evaluation.

The role of peer reviewer is distinct from the editorial role. Editors responsible for handling or deciding a manuscript should not simultaneously serve as independent reviewers of that manuscript.

5. Number of Peer Reviewers

Each manuscript that proceeds to external peer review is evaluated by a minimum of two independent peer reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript.

Both reviewers are expected to provide substantive scientific evaluations before an editorial decision is made.

Where the two reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, where a specialized methodological or statistical assessment is required, or where the editor considers the available evaluations insufficient, the Handling Editor may appoint an additional independent reviewer.

The appointment of an additional reviewer does not alter the journal's standard policy that each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers.

Reviewer assignments, review reports, editorial correspondence, and decisions are documented within the journal's online editorial management system.

6. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based, substantive, and constructive assessments of manuscripts.

Reviewers evaluate, where relevant:

  • relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
  • originality, novelty, and scholarly contribution;
  • adequacy of the state-of-the-art literature review;
  • clarity of the research gap;
  • clarity of the research questions, objectives, and/or hypotheses;
  • appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
  • appropriateness and rigor of the research design;
  • population, sampling method, sample-size adequacy, and data-collection procedures;
  • validity and reliability of measurements or research instruments;
  • validity and appropriateness of statistical or analytical methods;
  • transparency and reproducibility of research procedures;
  • clarity and adequacy of the results;
  • consistency between the data, results, discussion, and conclusions;
  • depth and critical quality of the discussion;
  • comparison of findings with relevant previous studies;
  • appropriateness of research-ethics information;
  • ethical approval and informed consent where applicable;
  • data integrity and data-availability information where applicable;
  • accuracy, relevance, adequacy, and currency of references;
  • appropriateness of tables, figures, and supplementary materials; and
  • whether the conclusions appropriately answer the research objectives and are supported by the findings.

Reviewers are expected to focus primarily on the scientific substance and integrity of the manuscript.

Reviewers are not expected to provide comprehensive language editing or copyediting. However, they may identify language or presentation problems that materially affect scientific clarity or interpretation.

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share manuscripts with unauthorized persons;
  • distribute or reproduce manuscript content;
  • discuss unpublished manuscripts outside the peer-review process;
  • use unpublished data, ideas, methods, figures, or other information for personal or professional advantage; or
  • disclose confidential editorial correspondence.

All information obtained through peer review must remain confidential until the relevant information has been legitimately published.

8. Conflict of Interest

Peer reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Reviewers must decline an invitation where personal, professional, financial, institutional, supervisory, collaborative, competitive, or other relationships may reasonably compromise their impartiality.

If a conflict becomes apparent after the reviewer has accepted the assignment, the reviewer must immediately notify the Handling Editor.

The editor may withdraw the review assignment and appoint another independent reviewer.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Peer reviewers are strictly prohibited from using generative artificial intelligence or AI-assisted systems in the peer-review process.

Reviewers must not use generative AI to:

  • analyze a manuscript;
  • evaluate scientific quality;
  • summarize manuscript content;
  • assess or score a manuscript;
  • generate reviewer comments; or
  • formulate recommendations to the editor.

Reviewers must not upload the manuscript, any part of the manuscript, unpublished data, tables, figures, supplementary files, or confidential editorial correspondence into generative AI or AI-assisted systems.

Scientific judgment and responsibility for the review must remain entirely with the reviewer.

10. Peer Review Timeline

Reviewers are normally requested to complete their review within 21 days after accepting the review invitation.

Where additional time is required, the reviewer should notify the Handling Editor before the review deadline.

EMAS strives to provide an efficient review process; however, the journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period.

The duration of the review process may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds required, and whether additional specialist review is necessary.

11. Editorial Decision

Peer reviewers provide recommendations to assist the editor in assessing the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final editorial decision.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor after considering:

  • the scientific quality of the manuscript;
  • the reports provided by the peer reviewers;
  • the authors' responses to reviewer comments;
  • compliance with publication and research ethics;
  • methodological validity;
  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope; and
  • compliance with editorial policies.

Possible editorial decisions include:

Accept Submission

The manuscript is considered suitable for publication, subject to final editorial and production checks.

Revisions Required

The manuscript requires revisions before a final decision can be made.

Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires substantial revision and another round of peer review.

Decline Submission

The manuscript does not meet the scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards required for publication.

Acceptance is not guaranteed following revision.

12. Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

When the two reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the Handling Editor evaluates the scientific arguments contained in the review reports rather than making a decision solely by counting reviewer recommendations.

The editor may:

  • assess the reports and make an editorial decision;
  • request clarification from one or both reviewers;
  • appoint an additional independent reviewer; or
  • consult an appropriate member of the Editorial Board who has relevant expertise and no conflict of interest.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor.

13. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:

  • a revised manuscript; and
  • a detailed point-by-point response to the comments provided by reviewers and editors.

The response should explain clearly how each comment has been addressed and identify the relevant revisions in the manuscript.

Where authors do not agree with a reviewer recommendation, they should provide a clear scientific justification.

As an editorial target, authors are normally given:

  • 14 days for minor revisions; and
  • 30 days for major revisions.

Additional time may be granted upon reasonable request.

Manuscripts requiring major scientific or methodological changes may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment.

Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the Handling Editor where the required changes do not require further scientific assessment.

More than one round of revision may be required before a final decision is reached.

14. Documentation of Peer Review

The peer-review process is conducted and documented through the journal's online editorial management system.

EMAS maintains records of the peer-review process, including:

  • manuscript submission history;
  • manuscript versions;
  • reviewer invitations;
  • reviewer assignments;
  • reviewer reports;
  • editorial correspondence;
  • author responses to reviewers;
  • revised manuscripts;
  • editorial recommendations; and
  • final editorial decisions.

These records are retained for editorial accountability, quality assurance, and verification of the peer-review process.

The scientific peer-review process should not be conducted exclusively through private email correspondence where reviewer assignment, reports, revisions, and editorial decisions cannot be adequately verified through the journal management system.

15. Publication Ethics in Peer Review

EMAS conducts its peer-review process in accordance with internationally recognized principles of publication ethics, including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • maintain confidentiality;
  • provide objective and constructive scientific assessments;
  • declare conflicts of interest;
  • respect intellectual property;
  • evaluate manuscripts fairly and without discrimination; and
  • immediately notify the editor if they identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, unethical research, inappropriate authorship, manipulation of data, or other potential breaches of research integrity.

16. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a factual misunderstanding, procedural error, or inappropriate interpretation may submit an appeal in accordance with the journal's Appeals and Complaints Policy.

An appeal should provide a clear scientific or procedural justification.

Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance of the manuscript.