Review Process

Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to JAMBAK: Jurnal Riset Manajemen, Bisnis, Akuntansi dan Ekonomi are subject to an initial editorial assessment followed by an independent peer-review process.

JAMBAK applies a double-blind peer review system. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process in order to maintain objectivity, impartiality, and academic integrity.

Manuscripts are evaluated by reviewers with expertise relevant to the journal’s disciplinary scope, including management, business, accounting, finance, entrepreneurship, marketing, human resource management, organizational studies, digital business, and applied business economics.

Initial Editorial Screening

Before a manuscript is sent to peer reviewers, the Editorial Team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

  • fits the aims and scope of JAMBAK;

  • demonstrates sufficient academic relevance and originality;

  • follows the journal’s author guidelines and manuscript structure;

  • meets minimum ethical and methodological requirements;

  • contains appropriate citations and references;

  • complies with the journal’s publication ethics;

  • has acceptable language quality and presentation; and

  • passes similarity or plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope, methodologically inadequate, ethically problematic, or inconsistent with submission requirements may be rejected at the editorial screening stage without external peer review.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent peer reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • subject expertise relevant to the manuscript;

  • scholarly publication record;

  • methodological competence;

  • institutional independence;

  • absence of conflicts of interest;

  • previous reviewing experience where appropriate; and

  • availability to conduct a substantive and timely review.

Reviewers must not be members of the Editorial Team handling the manuscript and must not have personal, professional, financial, institutional, or academic relationships that could reasonably compromise their independence.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. Relevance to the aims and scope of JAMBAK;

  2. Originality and novelty of the study;

  3. Clarity of the research problem and objectives;

  4. Adequacy of the theoretical foundation;

  5. Quality and relevance of the literature review;

  6. Appropriateness of the research design and methodology;

  7. Reliability and validity of data collection and analysis;

  8. Accuracy and depth of the results and discussion;

  9. Strength of theoretical and practical contributions;

  10. Consistency between research objectives, findings, and conclusions;

  11. Quality and relevance of references;

  12. Ethical compliance;

  13. Clarity of academic writing; and

  14. Overall scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the review, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept;

  • Minor Revision;

  • Major Revision; or

  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.

Editorial Decision

The Editorial Team considers:

  • the recommendations of the reviewers;

  • the quality and consistency of reviewer comments;

  • the author’s responses to reviewer comments;

  • the quality of the revised manuscript;

  • compliance with publication ethics; and

  • the overall academic contribution of the manuscript.

If reviewer recommendations substantially differ, the Editor may:

  • request clarification from the reviewers;

  • appoint an additional independent reviewer; or

  • make an editorial decision based on the available scholarly evidence.

The final decision may be:

  • Accept;

  • Minor Revision;

  • Major Revision; or

  • Reject.

Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:

  • a revised manuscript;

  • a detailed response to each reviewer comment; and

  • a clear explanation of any reviewer suggestion that was not implemented.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when further evaluation is required.

Authors must clearly identify revisions in accordance with the instructions provided by the Editorial Office.

Review Duration

JAMBAK aims to complete the first round of peer review within approximately 2–4 weeks after a manuscript has passed editorial screening and qualified reviewers have accepted the review assignment.

The actual review period may vary depending on:

  • manuscript complexity;

  • reviewer availability;

  • the extent of required revisions; and

  • the need for additional expert review.

JAMBAK does not guarantee acceptance or editorial decisions within a fixed period. Editorial decisions are based solely on academic quality, ethical compliance, and the results of peer review.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to JAMBAK are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share manuscripts with unauthorized persons;

  • discuss unpublished manuscript content outside the review process;

  • use unpublished data, ideas, methods, or findings for personal benefit;

  • disclose author or reviewer identities; or

  • retain confidential manuscript materials after completing the review.

The Editorial Team must also protect the confidentiality of authors, reviewers, and the review process.

Conflict of Interest

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

Potential conflicts of interest may include:

  • recent collaboration with the authors;

  • affiliation with the same institution;

  • personal or professional relationships;

  • financial interests;

  • academic competition; or

  • other circumstances that could affect impartiality.

When a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should decline the review assignment.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Peer reviewers are prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, figures, tables, unpublished data, or confidential review materials into generative artificial intelligence systems or external AI applications.

Reviewers must independently evaluate manuscripts and prepare reviewer comments based on their own scholarly judgment.

Generative AI must not be used to:

  • analyze confidential manuscript content;

  • generate reviewer recommendations;

  • produce substantive peer-review comments;

  • assess the originality or scientific merit of manuscripts; or

  • process unpublished data submitted to JAMBAK.

This restriction protects author confidentiality, intellectual property, unpublished research, and the integrity of the peer-review process.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide objective and constructive comments;

  • avoid personal criticism;

  • support critiques with appropriate academic reasoning;

  • identify relevant literature that may have been overlooked;

  • report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or ethical misconduct;

  • complete reviews within the agreed period; and

  • decline assignments when they lack sufficient expertise or cannot complete the review objectively.

Evidence of Peer Review

JAMBAK maintains records of the peer-review process within its journal management system, including:

  • reviewer assignments;

  • reviewer acceptance or decline;

  • review reports;

  • editorial correspondence;

  • revision history;

  • author responses to reviewers;

  • review completion dates; and

  • editorial decisions.

Only reviewers who have genuinely participated in the peer-review process may be recognized as active reviewers of JAMBAK.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are independent of financial, institutional, commercial, political, or personal influence.

Payment of an Article Processing Charge, where applicable, does not influence:

  • reviewer selection;

  • peer-review results;

  • editorial recommendations;

  • acceptance decisions; or

  • publication priority.

All manuscripts are evaluated exclusively on academic merit, ethical compliance, methodological quality, originality, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.