Peer Review Process

The Journal of Applied Economics & Business (JAEB) applies a rigorous, fair, confidential, and transparent peer-review process to maintain the academic quality, originality, methodological validity, and relevance of every published article.

All research articles, case studies, policy studies, conceptual articles, and review articles are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

The peer-review process is conducted independently from commercial, institutional, personal, political, or other interests that could affect editorial judgment.

Objectives of Peer Review

The peer-review process aims to:

  • Evaluate the originality and academic contribution of the manuscript;
  • Assess the relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of JAEB;
  • Evaluate the appropriateness of the theoretical foundation;
  • Assess the validity and transparency of the research methods;
  • Examine the accuracy and adequacy of the analysis;
  • Assess whether the findings support the conclusions;
  • Evaluate the theoretical, managerial, economic, financial, accounting, policy, or practical implications;
  • Identify ethical, methodological, reporting, or citation problems;
  • Provide constructive recommendations to improve the manuscript;
  • Support the editor in making an objective publication decision.

Double-Blind Peer Review

JAEB uses a double-blind review model. Reviewers do not receive information about the authors' names, affiliations, email addresses, or other identifying details. Authors do not receive information about the reviewers' identities.

Authors must prepare an anonymous manuscript by removing:

  • Author names;
  • Author affiliations;
  • Author email addresses;
  • ORCID identifiers;
  • Personal acknowledgements;
  • Funding information that directly reveals the authors' identities, when necessary during review;
  • Institutional statements that unnecessarily identify the authors;
  • Author names stored in the document properties;
  • Statements that directly reveal authorship.

Self-citations must be written in the third person and treated in the same manner as citations to other researchers.

Submission and Administrative Screening

After a manuscript is submitted through the JAEB online submission system, the editorial office conducts an administrative screening.

The screening verifies whether:

  • The manuscript has been submitted through the official OJS platform;
  • The manuscript uses the official JAEB template;
  • The manuscript file is readable and editable;
  • The OJS metadata are complete;
  • The title, abstract, keywords, and author information are consistent;
  • All required submission files have been provided;
  • The anonymous manuscript does not reveal author identity;
  • The manuscript follows the journal's technical and structural requirements;
  • Ethical approval and informed-consent information are included when applicable;
  • Declarations concerning funding, conflicts of interest, author contributions, and data availability are included.

A manuscript that does not meet the administrative requirements may be returned to the author for correction before editorial assessment.

Scope and Editorial Quality Screening

After the administrative screening, the editor evaluates whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration.

The editor assesses:

  • Consistency with the aims and scope of JAEB;
  • Relevance to applied economics, management, business, finance, or accounting;
  • Originality and potential contribution;
  • Clarity of the research problem;
  • Adequacy of the theoretical foundation;
  • Appropriateness of the research method;
  • Quality of academic writing;
  • Completeness of the manuscript structure;
  • Compliance with publication ethics;
  • Suitability for the journal's readership.

The editor may decline a manuscript before external review when it:

  • Falls outside the journal's aims and scope;
  • Contains no clear contribution to applied economics or business;
  • Does not meet minimum academic or methodological standards;
  • Contains serious ethical concerns;
  • Is substantially incomplete;
  • Does not follow the journal template after being returned for correction;
  • Contains excessive language problems that prevent proper evaluation;
  • Duplicates previously published work;
  • Does not present sufficient originality or relevance.

An editorial rejection before external review is commonly referred to as a desk rejection.

Similarity and Plagiarism Screening

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are checked using Turnitin, iThenticate, or another recognized similarity-detection system.

The editorial team does not rely only on the overall similarity percentage. The editor evaluates:

  • The source of the matching text;
  • The distribution of similarities;
  • The quality of paraphrasing;
  • The use of direct quotations;
  • The possibility of plagiarism;
  • The possibility of duplicate publication;
  • The possibility of undisclosed text recycling;
  • The presence of fabricated or unverifiable citations.

A manuscript may be returned for revision or rejected when it contains plagiarism, inappropriate paraphrasing, excessive unattributed copying, duplicate publication, or other serious similarity concerns.

Selection of Peer Reviewers

A manuscript that passes the editorial and similarity screening is normally assigned to at least two independent peer reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject, theory, method, sector, or analytical approach.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic qualifications;
  • Subject expertise;
  • Methodological competence;
  • Research and publication experience;
  • Independence from the authors;
  • Absence of conflicts of interest;
  • Previous review quality and timeliness;
  • Ability to provide an objective and constructive evaluation.

The journal seeks reviewer diversity in terms of institution, region, country, academic perspective, and research experience when possible.

The editor may invite an additional reviewer when:

  • The first two reviewers provide substantially different recommendations;
  • The manuscript requires additional methodological expertise;
  • The manuscript contains complex statistical, econometric, qualitative, legal, financial, or policy analysis;
  • A reviewer withdraws or fails to complete the review;
  • The editor requires further independent assessment.

Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or circumstance that could affect their independence or objectivity.

A reviewer must decline the invitation when a conflict of interest may arise from:

  • Recent or ongoing collaboration with an author;
  • Employment at the same institution as an author;
  • A supervisory or student relationship with an author;
  • A close personal or professional relationship;
  • Direct academic competition;
  • A financial or commercial interest in the research outcome;
  • Involvement in the research or manuscript preparation;
  • Any other circumstance that could compromise impartiality.

The editor determines whether a disclosed relationship constitutes a conflict that requires reviewer replacement.

Confidentiality of the Review Process

Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must protect all manuscript information during and after the review process.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share the manuscript with unauthorized parties;
  • Discuss the manuscript outside the editorial process;
  • Use unpublished data, arguments, methods, or findings for personal benefit;
  • Contact the authors directly concerning the manuscript;
  • Reveal their identity to the authors without editorial approval;
  • Retain or distribute manuscript files after completing the review.

When a reviewer needs advice from another specialist, prior permission must be obtained from the editor. Any individual who contributes to the review must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

Use of Artificial Intelligence during Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, or identifiable author information to unauthorized generative artificial intelligence systems.

Artificial intelligence tools must not replace the reviewer's independent academic judgment.

When an approved tool is used for limited language support or administrative assistance, the reviewer remains fully responsible for:

  • The accuracy of the review;
  • The confidentiality of the manuscript;
  • The originality of the reviewer report;
  • The fairness of the evaluation;
  • The final recommendation.

Reviewers must comply with the journal's confidentiality requirements and applicable institutional data-protection policies.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript according to its article type and disciplinary context.

Relevance and Scope

  • Does the manuscript fit the aims and scope of JAEB?
  • Does the manuscript address a relevant economic or business issue?
  • Is the topic important for academics, practitioners, policymakers, or other stakeholders?

Originality and Contribution

  • Does the manuscript present an original research problem, dataset, context, method, model, or interpretation?
  • Is the research gap stated clearly?
  • Is the novelty supported by the literature review?
  • Does the manuscript offer a clear theoretical, empirical, managerial, policy, or practical contribution?

Title and Abstract

  • Does the title accurately represent the manuscript?
  • Is the title concise and specific?
  • Does the abstract summarize the purpose, methodology, findings, implications, and originality?
  • Do the keywords represent the main focus of the manuscript?

Introduction

  • Is the research problem clearly defined?
  • Is the urgency of the study supported by evidence?
  • Does the introduction identify a specific research gap?
  • Are the objective and contribution clearly stated?

Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation

  • Is the literature review critical and analytical?
  • Are the sources relevant and sufficiently recent?
  • Is the principal theory appropriate?
  • Are previous findings compared and synthesized?
  • Do the theoretical arguments support the hypotheses, propositions, or conceptual framework?

Research Methods

  • Is the research design appropriate?
  • Are the population, sample, participants, or data sources described clearly?
  • Is the sampling or participant-selection procedure justified?
  • Are the variables or concepts defined adequately?
  • Are the measurement instruments valid and reliable?
  • Are the data-collection procedures transparent?
  • Is the analytical method appropriate and explained clearly?
  • Can the method be evaluated or replicated?
  • Are research ethics addressed adequately?

Results

  • Are the results presented clearly and logically?
  • Do the results answer the research objective or questions?
  • Are statistical, econometric, qualitative, or policy-analysis results reported accurately?
  • Are tables and figures relevant and understandable?
  • Are all tables and figures discussed in the text?
  • Are unexpected or contradictory findings reported?

Discussion

  • Does the discussion interpret the findings rather than repeat them?
  • Are the findings connected to the theoretical framework?
  • Are the results compared with previous studies?
  • Are consistent and inconsistent findings explained?
  • Are the theoretical and practical implications specific?
  • Are claims supported by the evidence?

Conclusion

  • Does the conclusion answer the research objective?
  • Does it summarize the main contribution?
  • Are the implications, limitations, and future research directions stated clearly?
  • Does the conclusion avoid introducing new evidence or arguments?

References and Citations

  • Are citations relevant to the arguments?
  • Are important recent studies included?
  • Are foundational sources used appropriately?
  • Do the in-text citations and reference list correspond?
  • Are the references written in APA 7 style?
  • Are DOI links valid and relevant?
  • Is there evidence of citation manipulation?

Language and Presentation

  • Is the manuscript written in clear academic English?
  • Is the argument presented logically?
  • Are technical terms explained?
  • Is the manuscript free from unnecessary repetition?
  • Does the manuscript follow the official template?

Reviewer Report

Reviewers are expected to provide a clear, objective, constructive, and evidence-based report.

A reviewer report should:

  • Identify the manuscript's strengths;
  • Identify major and minor concerns separately;
  • Explain the reasons for each criticism;
  • Provide practical recommendations for improvement;
  • Refer to specific sections, tables, figures, or statements;
  • Avoid personal, insulting, discriminatory, or hostile language;
  • Avoid requesting unnecessary citations to the reviewer's own work;
  • Distinguish mandatory revisions from optional suggestions;
  • Provide a recommendation consistent with the written evaluation.

Reviewers must not make decisions based on the authors' nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, religious beliefs, political views, professional status, or other personal characteristics.

Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

Accept Submission

The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision. Minor copyediting or formatting corrections may still be completed during production.

Revisions Required

The manuscript has publication potential but requires minor or moderate revisions. The editor may assess the revised manuscript without returning it to all reviewers.

Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires substantial theoretical, methodological, analytical, structural, or reporting revisions. The revised manuscript will normally undergo another review round.

Decline Submission

The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot be resolved through reasonable revision, falls outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient contribution, or fails to meet academic or ethical standards.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor makes the final decision after considering the reports, manuscript quality, journal policies, ethical requirements, and relevance to JAEB.

Editorial Decision

The editor evaluates all reviewer reports before issuing a decision.

The editor may:

  • Follow the reviewers' recommendations;
  • Request clarification from a reviewer;
  • Invite an additional reviewer;
  • Request specific revisions not identified by the reviewers;
  • Make a different decision when supported by clear academic or ethical reasons.

When reviewer recommendations differ significantly, the editor assesses the strength of each argument rather than deciding through a simple numerical vote.

The editor-in-chief or assigned editor holds final responsibility for publication decisions.

Revision by Authors

Authors who receive a revision decision must submit:

  • A revised manuscript;
  • A detailed response-to-reviewers document;
  • A response to every editorial and reviewer comment;
  • The location of each change in the revised manuscript;
  • An academic justification when a recommendation is not followed;
  • Any additional file requested by the editor.

The response-to-reviewers document should reproduce each comment and place the author's response immediately below it.

Authors must respond professionally, clearly, and respectfully. Disagreement with a reviewer is permitted when supported by theory, evidence, methodology, journal policy, or the study's scope.

Authors must not identify, contact, threaten, pressure, or attempt to influence reviewers.

Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

A revised manuscript may be evaluated by:

  • The assigned editor;
  • The original reviewers;
  • A new reviewer when additional expertise or independence is required.

The editor determines whether the authors have addressed the comments adequately.

More than one revision round may be required. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

The editor may decline a revised manuscript when:

  • Major concerns remain unresolved;
  • The authors do not respond adequately to the reviewers;
  • The revision introduces serious new problems;
  • The data or conclusions remain unsupported;
  • Ethical concerns emerge during revision;
  • The manuscript no longer meets the journal's standards.

Expected Review Time

JAEB aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining review quality.

Editorial Activity Target Period
Administrative and initial editorial screening Approximately 3 to 7 working days
Reviewer invitation and assignment Approximately 3 to 10 working days
Initial external peer review Approximately 14 to 28 days
Minor revision by authors Approximately 7 to 14 days
Major revision by authors Approximately 14 to 30 days
Assessment of revised manuscript Approximately 7 to 21 days
Final editorial decision after completed review Approximately 3 to 7 working days

These periods are targets rather than guarantees. The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, ethical investigations, and the responsiveness of authors and reviewers.

Reviewer Reminders and Replacement

Reviewers who accept an invitation are expected to submit their reports within the assigned period.

The editorial office may send reminders before or after the review deadline.

A reviewer may be replaced when:

  • The invitation is declined;
  • The reviewer does not respond;
  • The reviewer cannot complete the evaluation on time;
  • A conflict of interest is identified;
  • The submitted review does not meet minimum academic or ethical standards;
  • The editor requires different expertise.

Ethical Concerns Identified during Review

Reviewers must notify the editor when they suspect:

  • Plagiarism;
  • Duplicate publication;
  • Data fabrication or falsification;
  • Unethical research involving participants;
  • Inappropriate image manipulation;
  • Authorship problems;
  • Citation manipulation;
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • Peer-review manipulation;
  • Copyright infringement;
  • Other research or publication misconduct.

Reviewers should provide relevant evidence but must not independently investigate or contact the authors.

The editor will evaluate the concern and may request clarification, supporting data, ethical documentation, or institutional information.

Suspected misconduct will be handled in accordance with the guidance and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

A manuscript submitted by an editor, editorial board member, reviewer, or individual affiliated with the publisher must undergo the same editorial and peer-review standards as other manuscripts.

The submitting editor or board member must not:

  • Manage the manuscript;
  • Select reviewers;
  • Access confidential reviewer identities;
  • Participate in the editorial decision;
  • Influence the review process.

The manuscript will be assigned to an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

Special Issue and Invited Manuscripts

Special-issue manuscripts, invited articles, and manuscripts solicited by the journal are subject to the same editorial, ethical, similarity-screening, and peer-review standards as regular submissions.

An invitation to submit does not guarantee publication.

A guest editor must disclose conflicts of interest and must not make independent publication decisions without oversight from the editor-in-chief.

Withdrawal during Peer Review

Authors who wish to withdraw a manuscript must submit a written request to the editorial office and explain the reason for withdrawal.

The manuscript is not considered withdrawn until the journal issues written confirmation.

Authors must not submit the manuscript to another journal while the withdrawal request remains under consideration.

Repeated or unethical withdrawal after substantial editorial and reviewer work may be handled under the journal's publication-ethics policy.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that:

  • A material factual error affected the decision;
  • A reviewer misunderstood a central methodological or theoretical issue;
  • A conflict of interest affected the review;
  • The journal did not follow its stated editorial procedure;
  • Relevant evidence was overlooked.

An appeal must:

  • Be submitted in writing;
  • Identify the manuscript title and submission details;
  • Explain the grounds for appeal clearly;
  • Provide academic or procedural evidence;
  • Avoid personal attacks or unsupported allegations.

An appeal is not a new opportunity to submit a revised manuscript unless the editor authorizes revision.

The editor-in-chief may consult an independent editor or reviewer before making a decision. The decision on an appeal is final unless new evidence of a serious ethical or procedural problem emerges.

Reviewer Conduct

JAEB expects reviewers to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers must:

  • Accept assignments only when they have suitable expertise;
  • Complete reviews within the agreed period;
  • Maintain confidentiality;
  • Declare conflicts of interest;
  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively;
  • Provide constructive and respectful feedback;
  • Report suspected misconduct to the editor;
  • Avoid citation coercion;
  • Avoid using confidential information for personal advantage;
  • Submit an independent review based on their own academic judgment.

Editorial Independence

Publication decisions are made independently by the editor-in-chief and assigned editors based on academic merit, relevance, ethical compliance, reviewer evaluations, and journal policy.

The publisher does not interfere with decisions to accept, revise, or reject individual manuscripts.

Commercial considerations, author status, institutional reputation, nationality, personal relationships, and potential citation impact must not determine editorial decisions.

Final Acceptance and Production

A manuscript is accepted only after:

  • The peer-review process has been completed;
  • Required revisions have been addressed;
  • The editor confirms the manuscript's academic quality;
  • Ethical and administrative requirements have been satisfied;
  • The final manuscript complies with the journal template and reference style.

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, layout preparation, author proofreading, metadata verification, and online publication.

Acceptance may be withdrawn before publication when serious ethical, legal, authorship, data-integrity, or publication concerns are discovered.

Post-Publication Concerns

The journal may review concerns raised after publication. When necessary, the journal may issue:

  • A correction;
  • An erratum;
  • A corrigendum;
  • An expression of concern;
  • A retraction;
  • Another appropriate editorial notice.

Post-publication concerns are handled in accordance with JAEB publication policies and relevant COPE guidance.

Editorial Contact

Questions concerning peer review, editorial decisions, reviewer conduct, appeals, or publication ethics should be directed to the official JAEB editorial office.

Journal of Applied Economics & Business
Publisher: PT Penerbit Velora Indonesia
Email: ejournal@veloraindonesia.com
Website: veloraindonesia.com

This Peer Review Process forms part of the editorial policies of the Journal of Applied Economics & Business. JAEB may revise this policy periodically to maintain consistency with developments in scholarly publishing, research integrity, peer-review standards, publication ethics, and national journal-accreditation requirements.