Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Zona Law and Public Administration Indonesia is committed to maintaining high academic standards, integrity, originality, and quality in every article published. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo editorial screening and an independent peer-review process before a final publication decision is made.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Every manuscript submitted to Zona Law and Public Administration Indonesia is initially examined by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor. The initial screening evaluates:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  • Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript template;

  • Originality and potential contribution to the field;

  • Academic and methodological quality;

  • Clarity and organization of the manuscript;

  • Compliance with publication ethics; and

  • Similarity or potential plagiarism issues.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected at this stage without being forwarded to external reviewers.

2. Peer Review System

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening will be forwarded to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the manuscript's subject area.

Zona Law and Public Administration Indonesia applies a double-blind peer-review system, meaning that:

  • The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers; and

  • The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Authors are therefore required to ensure that identifying information is removed from the manuscript where necessary to maintain the integrity of the anonymous review process.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor based on several considerations, including:

  • Academic expertise relevant to the manuscript;

  • Research and publication experience;

  • Competence in the relevant discipline;

  • Independence and absence of conflicts of interest;

  • Previous reviewing experience; and

  • Ability to provide objective and constructive academic evaluation.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and must not use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following considerations:

  1. Originality – The manuscript presents original academic work and provides a meaningful contribution to existing scholarship.

  2. Relevance – The topic is relevant to law, public administration, governance, public policy, or other areas covered by the journal.

  3. Research Problem – The research problem and objectives are clearly formulated.

  4. Theoretical Foundation – The manuscript uses appropriate and relevant theories, concepts, and previous studies.

  5. Methodology – The research methodology is appropriate to the research objectives and is adequately explained.

  6. Results and Analysis – The findings are presented clearly and supported by rigorous analysis.

  7. Discussion – The discussion demonstrates critical engagement with relevant theories and previous research.

  8. Contribution – The manuscript demonstrates theoretical, methodological, legal, policy, or practical significance.

  9. Academic Writing – The manuscript is logically structured, coherent, and written in appropriate academic language.

  10. References – The references are relevant, adequate, current where appropriate, and consistently presented according to the journal's citation style.

  11. Research Ethics – The manuscript complies with applicable standards of research and publication ethics.

5. Reviewer's Recommendation

After completing the evaluation, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

Accepted
The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial revisions.

Accepted with Minor Revisions
The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication after relatively minor corrections or improvements.

Major Revisions Required
The manuscript requires substantial improvement before it can be considered for publication. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Resubmit for Review
The manuscript requires extensive revision and must undergo another round of peer review.

Declined / Rejected
The manuscript does not meet the academic standards, scope, originality requirements, methodological expectations, or publication criteria of the journal.

6. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to carefully address the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and editors.

Authors should submit:

  • A revised version of the manuscript; and

  • A response to reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing an academic justification when a recommendation has not been adopted.

The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the assigned editor or returned to the reviewers when additional assessment is necessary.

7. Editorial Decision

The reviewers provide recommendations to assist the editorial process; however, the final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board.

Editorial decisions are based on:

  • Reviewers' recommendations;

  • Academic quality of the manuscript;

  • Originality and significance of the research;

  • Compliance with journal policies;

  • Authors' responses to reviewer comments;

  • Ethical considerations; and

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

The editorial decision may be Accepted, Revision Required, Resubmit for Review, or Rejected.

8. Review and Publication Timeline

The journal endeavors to conduct the editorial screening and peer-review process efficiently. Under normal circumstances, the initial screening and peer-review process is expected to take approximately 4–8 weeks, although the actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of revision rounds required.

Authors are expected to submit revisions within the timeframe specified by the editor. Requests for additional revision time should be communicated to the editorial office.

9. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose information regarding submitted manuscripts to unauthorized persons.

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their assessment. Where a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review assignment.

10. Publication Ethics

The peer-review process of Zona Law and Public Administration Indonesia is conducted according to internationally recognized principles of academic integrity and publication ethics.

The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, or other forms of research and publication misconduct.

The journal is committed to ensuring that editorial decisions are based exclusively on the academic merit, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and contribution of submitted manuscripts, without discrimination based on authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics.