Peer Review Process

Jurnal Keuangan dan Perpajakan (JKP) implements a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic rigor, and scholarly contribution of all published manuscripts. Under this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process, thereby promoting objectivity, fairness, and impartial evaluation.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine their suitability for the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with submission requirements, adherence to ethical standards, and overall academic quality. At this stage, manuscripts may also be screened for similarity and originality using plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be rejected without proceeding to external review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, theoretical and practical contribution, methodological rigor, analytical quality, clarity of presentation, relevance of references, validity of findings, and overall contribution to the fields of accounting, finance, taxation, and related disciplines.

The review process is intended not only to assess the suitability of the manuscript for publication but also to provide constructive feedback that assists authors in improving the quality and scholarly value of their work.

Revision Process

Authors receive reviewers’ comments and recommendations through the journal’s online submission system. When revisions are required, authors are expected to revise the manuscript carefully and submit a detailed response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Additional rounds of review may be conducted when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal’s academic standards.

Editorial Decision

The Editor evaluates reviewers’ reports and recommendations before making a final editorial decision. Decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. While reviewer recommendations are an essential component of the evaluation process, the final decision regarding publication remains the responsibility of the Editor.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal’s scope, significance of findings, and contribution to academic knowledge and professional practice.

Production and Publication

Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed through several stages, including copyediting, proofreading, layout editing, metadata preparation, and final publication. During these stages, authors may be contacted to verify information, review proofs, and ensure the accuracy of the published version.

Review Principles

The peer review process at JKP is conducted in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, objectivity, academic integrity, professionalism, transparency, and scholarly excellence. Editors and reviewers are expected to avoid conflicts of interest and evaluate manuscripts solely on their academic quality and contribution to knowledge.

The journal is committed to maintaining a fair and ethical review process that supports the advancement of research in accounting, finance, taxation, financial management, auditing, corporate governance, fiscal policy, and related fields.

Review Timeline

The average peer review and editorial process generally requires approximately 8–12 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript quality, the complexity of revisions required, and the responsiveness of authors during the revision process. The editorial team strives to ensure an efficient and timely review process while maintaining high standards of scholarly evaluation.