Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process & Publication Ethics Guidelines

e-ISSN: 2620-7400 | p-ISSN: 2620-5262

Review Model: Double-Anonymous Peer Review

1. Peer Review Model

Jurnal Pertahanan dan Bela Negara operates a Double-Anonymous Peer Review model for all submitted research manuscripts.

  • Anonymity: Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout and after the review process.

  • Independent Assessment: Every manuscript passing initial screening is evaluated by at least two (2) independent expert reviewers.

  • Editorial Authority: Reviewers provide expert evaluations; final publishing decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief.

2. Review Workflow & Timeline

  1. Initial Screening
    Scope alignment, formatting check, and Turnitin similarity screening (similarity index must be <= 20%).
    Timeline: 1 - 3 Days

  2. External Review
    Independent evaluation by subject experts on theoretical framework, research methodology, data analysis, and ethical compliance.
    Timeline: 3 - 4 Weeks

  3. Editorial Decision
    Decision synthesis by the handling editor: Accept, Minor Revisions Required, Major Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, or Decline Submission. 
    Timeline: 1 Week

  4. Revision & Verification
    Author revision submission alongside a detailed point-by-point response letter, verified before final acceptance.Timeline: 1-2  Weeks

3. Ethical Expectations for Reviewers (COPE Aligned)

Reviewers must adhere to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are privileged documents and must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage.

  • Competing Interests: Reviewers must decline invitations if financial, institutional, professional, or personal conflicts of interest exist.

  • Constructive Objectivity: Evaluations should be conducted politely, constructively, and objectively without derogatory, discriminatory, or coercive language.

  • Generative AI Prohibition: Uploading confidential manuscripts or supplementary files to external Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude) is strictly prohibited.

4. Reviewer Selection & Independence

  • Independent Selection: Author-suggested reviewers are treated as advisory only; credentials and affiliations are independently verified by the editorial office.

  • Conflict Recusal: Reviewers affiliated with the same institution or involved in recent collaborative projects with the authors are excluded.

  • Board Member Submissions: Submissions from editors or Editorial Board members are assigned to an Independent Handling Editor, with conflicted editors completely recused from the review portal and decision process.

5. Editorial Appeals

Authors may submit a formal appeal if they believe an editorial decision resulted from a material error or procedural flaw:

  • Appeals must be submitted in writing within 14 days of decision notification, detailing specific evidence-based grounds.

  • Disagreement with scholarly judgment alone does not constitute valid grounds for appeal.

  • Appeals are reviewed by an independent Appeal Panel or senior editor not involved in the original decision. The outcome of the appeal is final within the journal's process.