Peer Review Process

Jurnal Ilmu Keuangan dan Perbankan (JIKA) uses a Double-Blind Review system.

Some policies in the review of Jurnal Ilmu Keuangan dan Perbankan (JIKA) :

  1. Any submitted paper will be reviewed by reviewers.
  2. The review process employs a Double-blind Review, in that the reviewer does not know the identity of the author, and the author does not know the identity of the reviewer.
  3. In the review process, reviewers consider the correspondence of title, abstract, discussion (findings), and conclusions. In addition, reviewers also consider the novelty, scientific impact, and references used in the paper.

The response of the reviewers will be the basis for the Editor to conclude:

  1. Accept Submission
  2. Revisions Required
  3. Resubmit for review
  4. Resubmit elsewhere
  5. Decline Submission

An article was rejected for publication due to various considerations, including:

  1. The article does not fit the scope of the journal.
  2. The article does not follow the rules of writing scientific papers or author guidelines.
  3. The fundamental methodological errors.
  4. The author refuses to make suggestions of improvements provided by the reviewer without a logical basis.
  5. There are indications of plagiarism of more than 20%.

We are committed to prompt evaluation and publication of fully accepted articles in Jurnal Ilmu Keuangan dan Perbankan (JIKA) (E-ISSN: 2655-9234P-ISSN: 2089-2845). To maintain a high-quality publication, all submissions undergo a rigorous review process.

We only publish articles that have been reviewed and approved by highly qualified researchers with expertise in a field appropriate for the article. We used a double-blind peer-reviewing process. Detailed information about the flow for the manuscript submission (author) to the acceptance by the editor is shown in the following figure.

In short, the steps are:

  1. Manuscript Submission (by author) (route 1)
  2. Manuscript Check and Selection (by manager and editors) (route 2). Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review. Prior to further processing steps, a plagiarism check using Turnitin is applied for each manuscript.
  3. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers) (route 3-4)
  4. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on the reviewer's comments) (route 5)
  5. Paper Revision (by author)
  6. Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestion (by author) with the similar flow to point number 1. (route 1)
  7. If the reviewer seems to be satisfied with revision, notification for acceptance (by editor). (route 6)
  8. Galley proof and publishing process (route 7 and 8)

Steps point number 1 to 5 is considered as 1 round of the peer-reviewing process (see the grey area in the figure). And, our reviewing process at least goes through 2 rounds of reviewing process.

The journal editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

  1. Accept without any changes (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper in its original form
  2. Accept with minor revisions (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections
  3. Accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors
  4. Revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes
  5. Reject the paper (outright rejection): the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions

Note:
There is no communication between authors and editors concerning the rejection decision.
Authors whose papers are rejected will be informed of the reasons for the rejection.