Peer Review Manipulation

Peer Review Process  ·  Jurnal Civics
Fair, confidential, and on time.
Double-anonymous review: each stage, who does what, time limits, criteria, and decisions.
01
Our model
Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan uses double-anonymous peer review: the authors do not know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers do not know who the authors are. The process follows the COPE Core Practice on peer review processes and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. This revised process applies to manuscripts published from 2027, Volume 24 No. 1 onwards.
Original research articles Double-anonymous review by at least three reviewers
Systematic literature reviews Double-anonymous review by at least three reviewers
Book reviews Editorial review
Issue size From Volume 24 (2027), a maximum of 15 articles per issue
Whole process No more than 17 weeks; final decision at the latest 4 months after submission
02
How the process follows COPE
Confidentiality Manuscripts, reviews, and identities are confidential before, during, and after review. See Peer Review Confidentiality.
Competing interests Editors and reviewers declare interests and step aside when needed. See Reviewer Competing Interests and Conflict of Interest.
Expertise and independence Reviewers are chosen by editors for expertise, with verified identities. See Reviewer Selection.
Fairness Manuscripts are judged on scholarly merit only, not on the authors’ identity, nationality, institution, religion, gender, political views, or ability to pay.
Timeliness Published time limits for every stage (section 04), with reminders and status updates.
Transparency The process, criteria, decisions, and appeals are published on this page, and every decision is explained.
Integrity Manipulation of review, coercive citation, and misuse of AI are treated as misconduct. See Peer Review Manipulation and AI in Peer Review.
Accountability Appeals and complaints are handled by people not involved in the decision. See Editorial Appeals.
03
Roles and responsibilities
Authors Submit original, anonymised work in the template; declare funding, conflicts, ethics approval, data availability, and AI use; respond to reviews fully and on time; do not contact reviewers.
Reviewers Accept only within their expertise and time; declare interests; keep the manuscript confidential; give objective, specific, constructive reports within 21 days; report suspected misconduct to the editor.
Handling editor Screens the manuscript, chooses and manages reviewers, checks review quality, weighs the reviews, and recommends a decision.
Editor-in-Chief Assigns editors, makes final decisions, ensures policies are followed, and handles appeals through an uninvolved editor.
Publisher (UNY) Provides the system, similarity checking, DOIs, and preservation, and supports editorial independence without taking part in decisions.
04
Stages and time limits
STAGE WHO WHAT HAPPENS TIME
1. Submission Author Anonymised manuscript in the template, separate title page, Author Declaration Form, supplementary files. OJS acknowledges receipt. Day 0
2. Initial screening Editor-in-Chief or editor Scope, template, anonymisation, similarity (limits in the Plagiarism Policy), ethics and AI declarations. Outcome: sent to review, returned for technical fixes, or declined without review. Up to 7 days
3. Handling editor Editor-in-Chief Assigns an editor with no conflict of interest. Days 7–10
4. Reviewer invitation Handling editor At least three reviewers chosen for expertise and independence. See Reviewer Selection. Respond promptly
5. Review Reviewers Independent assessment using the Reviewer Guidelines. 21 days
6. First decision Handling editor → Editor-in-Chief Weighs the reviews; may invite an extra reviewer if they disagree sharply. Decision letter with reasons and all reviews. About 6 weeks
7. Revision Author Revised manuscript with tracked changes and a point-by-point response letter. Minor: 1 week; major: 3 weeks; one extension up to 1 week
8. Re-review Editor or reviewers Minor revisions checked by the editor; major revisions usually go back to the reviewers. Normally 1–2 weeks
9. Final decision Editor-in-Chief Accept or decline, after all requirements are met. By week 14; at the latest 4 months
10. Production Editorial office Copyediting, layout, proofs to authors, APC invoice, publication online with a DOI. After acceptance
05
Initial screening in detail
—  Scope: the manuscript fits the Focus and Scope and is one of the accepted types of manuscript.
—  Template and language: the article template is used, the manuscript is in English, and the references follow APA 7th.
—  Anonymisation: names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and identifying self-citations are removed, including from file properties.
—  Similarity: checked with similarity-detection software.
—  Ethics: approval and consent for research with people, and declarations of funding, conflicts of interest, data availability, and AI use. See the Ethical Clearance Statement and Generative AI Policy.
06
Reviewers
—  At least three independent reviewers with expertise in the subject, chosen by the handling editor, never by the authors.
—  Identities checked through institutional email and ORCID iD. Reviewers suggested by authors are checked independently and never make up the whole panel.
—  Reviewers declare conflicts of interest and decline where needed. See Reviewer Competing Interests.
—  Reviewers keep manuscripts confidential and do not upload them to AI tools. See Peer Review Confidentiality and AI in Peer Review.
—  Reviewers are thanked by issue on the reviewer list, never by manuscript.
—  Editors monitor review quality. Reviews that are superficial, biased, discourteous, or apparently AI-generated are not used, and the reviewer may be replaced.
07
Review criteria
Originality and contribution New knowledge for citizenship studies and civic education
Rigour Clear questions, suitable methods, valid analysis; PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews
Evidence and argument Findings supported by the data and discussed against current literature
Ethics Approval, consent, protection of participants, and complete declarations
References More than 25, at least 80% peer-reviewed journal articles from the last 10 years, APA 7th
Presentation Clear English, logical structure, useful tables and figures
08
Decisions
Accept Publishable after copyediting
Minor revisions Small changes; checked by the editor
Major revisions Substantial changes; usually re-reviewed
Decline Not suitable, with reasons
Decisions rest on the evidence in the manuscript and on the reviews, not on the identity, nationality, or standing of the authors, and not on fees. Inappropriate reviewer comments are removed before reviews are sent. See Editorial Decisions and Editing Peer Reviews.
09
Revising your manuscript
1.  Revise using the same template, and keep the file anonymous.
2.  Show changes with tracked changes or highlighting.
3.  Write a response letter that answers every comment, point by point: what you changed and where, or why you did not.
4.  Upload the revision and the letter through the journal system before the deadline. Ask the editor before the deadline if you need an extension.
10
Communication and timeliness
—  All communication goes through the journal system or journalcivics@uny.ac.id. Authors can follow the status of their submission in OJS.
—  Reviewers receive automatic reminders before and after the 21-day deadline. Late reviewers may be replaced to keep the process on time.
—  If a stage takes longer than the published limit, the editor tells the authors and gives a new expected date.
—  Authors who receive no update within the published time limits may write to the editor.
11
Special cases
—  Manuscripts by editors or board members are handled by another editor, and the editor-author has no access to the process.
—  Suspected misconduct during review pauses the process. See Research Misconduct and Peer Review Manipulation.
—  Withdrawal by authors during review is possible by writing to the editor. See Correction, Retraction and Withdrawal.
12
Appeals and complaints
Authors may appeal against a decision within 30 days. Disagreement alone is not a ground for appeal. See Editorial Appeals. Complaints about the process are handled under the Complaints Policy.
13
Related