Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to Parapolitika: Journal of Politics and Social Sciences will undergo a selection and assessment process by the Board of Editors to ensure their accordance with the writing guidelines, focus, and scope, and that they are of excellent academic quality. The manuscripts will be reviewed using the double-blind peer review method, in which case neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

1. Desk Review

At the desk review stage, manuscripts will be examined to ensure that they have met the writing guidelines, focus, and scope with excellent academic quality. If they do not meet the conditions, the author will be given the opportunity to revise their manuscript according to the given criteria. However, there is also the possibility that the manuscript will be directly rejected.

2. Peer Review

When the manuscript has passed the desk review stage, it will then be delivered to two reviewers who are experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. The review process will be done within 3 weeks. Manuscripts that did not successfully pass the desk review process will not proceed to this stage.

3. Reviewer’s Decision

The reviewers will provide one of the following recommendations:

    • Accepted: Means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
    • Accepted with Minor Revisions: Means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns.
    • Accepted with Major Revisions: Means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised.
    • Rejected: Means that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication or the given reviews relate to very basic issues.

The reviewers’ decisions will be considered by the Board of Editors to determine the ensuing process of the manuscript.

4. Revision Stage

Once the manuscript has been received with notations of minor or major revisions, it will be returned to the author with a review summary form. For manuscripts accepted with major revisions, authors are allotted 3 weeks to revise. Whereas for manuscripts accepted with minor revisions, 1 week is allotted for revision. When returning the revised manuscript, the author is required to fill in and attach the review summary form.

5. Final Decision

At this stage, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the Board of Editors to ensure that the author has revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns. In this final decision, the manuscript may still be rejected if the author did not seriously conduct the revisions necessary.

6. Proofread

Once the manuscript has been deemed acceptable by the Board of Editors, it will undergo a proofreading process to maintain linguistic and structural quality.

7. Publication Confirmation

At this stage, the final layout of the manuscript will be sent to the author to ensure that the content is in accordance with the author’s writing. The author may revise any typographical errors found in the final manuscript. Once confirmation from the author is given, the Editorial Board will process the manuscript for online publication on the website.

Publication Frequency

Parapolitika publishes biannually (twice a year) in July and December (atau disesuaikan dengan frekuensi terbitan Parapolitika).

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Screening Plagiarism

Plagiarism screening will be conducted by the Parapolitika Editorial Board using Turnitin. Manuscripts must maintain a similarity index below the journal's maximum threshold (e.g., maximum 20%).           

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
  2. Data Access and Retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide such data within a reasonable time.
  3. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted.
  4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
  5. Acknowledgement of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
  6. Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
  7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  9. Hazards and Human Subjects: If the work involves procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, or involves human subjects, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript and comply with relevant ethical standards.

Duties of Editors

  1. Fair Play: An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  2. Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
  4. Publication Decisions: The Board of Editors of Parapolitika is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
  5. Review of Manuscripts: The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
  2. Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  6. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Reviewers’ Guideline

Manuscripts submitted to Parapolitika: Journal of Politics and Social Sciences will undergo a double-blind review process. The reviewers are tasked to carry out reviews that include analyses and assessments of manuscripts’ acceptability to be published in Parapolitika.

Reviewers should consider the following points prior to conducting their review:

  1. Does the manuscript match your expertise? If the article does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the Editorial Board.
  2. Do you have time to review the manuscript? The review process should be completed within 2–3 weeks after a manuscript has been sent. If you need more time, please contact the Editorial Board.
  3. Are there any conflicts of interest? If you have any conflicts of interest with the manuscript, please contact the Editorial Board.
  4. Are there any indications of plagiarism? If you suspect any indications of plagiarism in the manuscript, please contact the Editorial Board immediately.

Review Criteria:

  1. Title: Does it clearly and concisely describe the manuscript?
  2. Abstract: Does it accurately reflect the core content, methodology, findings, and conclusion of the manuscript?
  3. Introduction: Does it contain the general background, problem statement, research context, and clear objectives? Is the relevant literature review integrated effectively?
  4. Content & Novelty:
    • Does the manuscript contain novelty, profound academic insights, and strong arguments?
    • Does the manuscript contribute to political and social science literature?
    • Are the main theoretical frameworks and references appropriate and up-to-date?
  5. Method:
    • Is the research design/approach clearly explained?
    • Are data collection and analysis methods accurate and suitable for answering the research questions?
  6. Results and Discussion: Are the findings presented clearly and logically? Is there a critical analysis connecting empirical data with theoretical frameworks?
  7. Conclusion: Does it summarize the main findings and answer the research objectives without simply repeating the discussion? Are actionable policy or theoretical recommendations included?
  8. Tables and Figures: Are they necessary, clear, and accompanied by proper source citations?
  9. References: Are references written according to the required citation style (e.g., APA 7th edition)? Are a majority of the sources recent journal articles (within the last 10 years)?
  10. Writing Style: Is the manuscript written in clear academic English/Indonesian that is easy to understand and free of major grammatical errors?

Final Review Submission:

  1. Complete the Review Form provided on the OJS platform.
  2. Provide constructive narrative comments for the authors.
  3. Select one of the following final recommendations:      
    • Accepted
    • Accepted with Minor Revisions
    • Accepted with Major Revisions
    • Rejected