Efisiensi uses a double-blind peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout. Every manuscript that passes initial screening is reviewed by at least one independent reviewer; from Volume 24 Number 1 (February 2027), every manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. The whole process is run and recorded in the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS). The process follows COPE's Core Practices and Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

1. Principles

• Anonymity: authors do not know who reviewed their work, and reviewers do not know who wrote it. Authors submit an anonymised manuscript, as described in the Author Guidelines.
• Independence: decisions are based only on scholarly merit and fit with the journal's scope, not on the authors' institution, nationality, gender, religion, or seniority, and not on payment of fees.
• Confidentiality: manuscripts and reviews are confidential and may not be shared, cited, used, or uploaded to AI tools before publication.
• Constructiveness: reviews are specific, respectful, evidence-based, and aimed at improving the work.
• Accountability: reviewers advise; the editors decide and remain responsible for the process.

2. Step-by-Step Review Process

Step 1. Submission

The author submits three files through OJS: the title page, the anonymised manuscript, and the signed Statement of Originality, plus any supplementary files. Only the anonymised manuscript is sent to reviewers. The system sends an acknowledgement with a submission ID.

Step 2. Initial screening (within 7 days)

The Editor-in-Chief or a section editor checks:

• fit with the journal's scope in administrative science;
• use of the template and the formal requirements (structure, statements, APA 7th edition, at least 20 references);
• anonymisation of the manuscript;
• the Turnitin similarity report, which is uploaded to the submission record in OJS;
• basic quality of language, argument, and method.

Outcomes: sent to review; returned for technical correction (to be resubmitted within 7 days); or declined, with a short explanation.

Step 3. Assignment of a handling editor

The Editor-in-Chief assigns a section editor with relevant expertise. Editors with a conflict of interest, for example a colleague, recent co-author, or supervisor of an author, do not handle the manuscript. Manuscripts by members of the editorial team are always handled by another editor.

Step 4. Reviewer selection and invitation

The handling editor invites at least one reviewer, and at least two for manuscripts in Volume 24 Number 1 (February 2027) onwards. Reviewers must:

• have expertise in the topic or method of the manuscript;
• have a publication record in the last three years: at least one article as first or corresponding author, or at least three articles as co-author, in nationally accredited (SINTA) or internationally indexed journals;
• be verifiable through an institutional email address and a public profile such as ORCID, SINTA, or Google Scholar;
• come from institutions different from the authors'; where possible, at least one reviewer is from outside UNY.

Authors may suggest or oppose reviewers in the comments to the editor. Suggestions are checked independently. Invited reviewers respond within 7 days; if they decline or do not respond, another reviewer is invited.

Step 5. Review (21 days)

• Reviewers complete the journal's review form in OJS and evaluate the manuscript against the criteria in Section 3.
• They give comments for the authors and confidential comments for the editor, and may upload an annotated file after removing identifying information.
• Reviewers must not use generative AI to read, analyse, or review the manuscript.
• OJS sends automatic reminders. If a review is overdue after an agreed extension of up to 5 days, the reviewer is replaced.

Step 6. Editorial decision

Within 7 days of receiving the reviews, the handling editor weighs the reviews and their own reading and recommends a decision to the Editor-in-Chief. If the reviews conflict sharply, or a single review is inconclusive, an additional reviewer is invited. The decision letter includes all anonymised reviewer comments.

Step 7. Revision

Minor revisions are due within 1 week and major revisions within 3 weeks. Authors upload the revised anonymised manuscript with changes highlighted, and a response table that answers every comment and shows where the change was made. Late revisions may be treated as new submissions.

Step 8. Re-review and final decision

After major revisions the manuscript returns to the reviewers, who have 10 days to re-review it. After minor revisions the editor checks the revision. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision within 4 months of submission.

Step 9. After acceptance

The accepted date is recorded in OJS. The manuscript is copyedited, laid out, proofread by the authors, and published online with a DOI. Articles may be published as soon as they are ready in the current issue (Issue in Progress).

Timeline summary

3. Review Criteria

• Relevance and novelty: importance for administrative science and office administration; clear state of the art and research gap.
• Introduction: clear problem, gap, and objective; appropriate theoretical framework.
• Method: appropriate design, sampling, instruments (with validity and reliability), and analysis; ethical procedures for research with people.
• Results and discussion: findings supported by data; interpretation compared with previous studies; implications and limitations.
• Conclusion: answers the research objective without repeating results.
• References: at least 20 sources, at least 80% journal articles, at least 80% from the last 10 years, in APA 7th edition.
• Presentation: clear language, informative tables and figures, consistent style.
• Ethics: originality, similarity, and complete statements (author contributions, funding, conflict of interest, ethics, generative AI use).

4. Decision Categories

5. Similarity Checking

Turnitin is used at screening and again before publication. Manuscripts above 20% overall, or above 1% from any single source (excluding the reference list), are returned to the authors or declined, depending on the nature of the overlap. Details are in the Plagiarism Policy.

6. Responsibilities of Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers and editors follow the duties set out in the Publication Ethics statement and the Conflict of Interest Policy. Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts to generative AI tools (Generative AI Policy).

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal a decision to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days, giving specific reasons, at efisiensi@uny.ac.id. The appeal is assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, who may seek an additional review. The appeal decision is final.

8. Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers receive a certificate of reviewing through the journal, and are listed on the Reviewers page with their consent. Reviewers may record verified reviews on their ORCID record where supported.

Sources

• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Core practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
• COPE Council. (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 2). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
• Direktorat Jenderal Sains dan Teknologi. (2026). Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Sains dan Teknologi Nomor 374/DST/D.D1/HM.01.01/2026 tentang Petunjuk Teknis Akreditasi Jurnal Ilmiah. Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi, Sains, dan Teknologi.