Peer Review Process

1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku (JIP) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, independent, and ethical peer review process.

Peer review is an essential component of scholarly publishing that supports the evaluation of research quality, methodological rigor, originality, ethical compliance, and contribution to knowledge in psychology and behavioral sciences.

The journal recognizes that peer review is intended to improve the quality and reliability of scholarly publications while ensuring that editorial decisions are based on appropriate academic standards.

This policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and relevant guidance concerning peer review processes, conflicts of interest, editorial independence, confidentiality, and publication integrity.

All individuals involved in peer review must act professionally, objectively, confidentially, and in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

2. Objectives of Peer Review

The peer review process aims to:

Evaluate the originality and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts.
Assess the relevance of manuscripts to the journal's aims and scope.
Examine the appropriateness and rigor of research methodologies.
Evaluate the accuracy and transparency of data analysis.
Assess the validity of conclusions and interpretations.
Identify potential research ethics concerns.
Evaluate the adequacy of references and engagement with relevant literature.
Provide constructive recommendations for manuscript improvement.
Support fair and evidence-based editorial decisions.
Maintain the integrity and credibility of the scholarly record.

Peer review is intended to provide independent scholarly assessment rather than merely identify errors or enforce stylistic preferences.

3. Scope of Peer Review

Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku are subject to editorial assessment to determine their suitability for further consideration.

Research manuscripts that proceed to external peer review should be evaluated by appropriately qualified reviewers with relevant expertise.

The journal's review procedures must be applied consistently with its publicly stated peer review model and editorial policies.

Editorial materials, announcements, corrections, and other content that do not undergo the same external peer review process should be identified appropriately.

The journal must not describe material as peer reviewed unless it has undergone the applicable review procedure.

4. Peer Review Model

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku shall clearly identify the peer review model applied to its manuscripts through the official journal website.

Depending on the journal's formally adopted procedures, peer review models may include:

Single-anonymous peer review: Reviewers know the authors' identities, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
Double-anonymous peer review: Author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other during the review process, subject to the limitations of practical anonymity.
Open peer review: Identities or review reports may be disclosed according to the journal's published procedures.

The journal must apply the peer review model that has been formally adopted and publicly disclosed.

Any exceptions or modifications must be managed transparently and consistently.

Regardless of the review model, confidentiality, impartiality, and professional conduct remain essential requirements.

5. Initial Editorial Screening

Following submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment.

The initial screening may consider:

Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Compliance with submission requirements.
Completeness of manuscript information.
Originality and potential textual overlap.
Basic methodological and scholarly adequacy.
Research ethics declarations.
Authorship and competing interest information.
Readability and presentation quality.
Compliance with applicable journal policies.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy fundamental editorial requirements may be returned for correction or declined without external peer review.

An editorial rejection at the screening stage does not necessarily indicate research misconduct.

The journal should communicate the basis of such decisions appropriately.

6. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers must be selected based on relevant expertise, scholarly competence, independence, and their ability to provide a fair and constructive assessment.

The handling editor should consider:

Subject expertise.
Familiarity with relevant research methods.
Experience in the relevant scholarly field.
Potential conflicts of interest.
Availability to complete the review.
Professional conduct and reliability.
The need for complementary methodological or disciplinary perspectives.

Reviewers should not be selected solely because of institutional affiliation, personal relationships, or their likelihood of recommending acceptance.

The journal should seek independent assessment appropriate to the manuscript's complexity and subject matter.

7. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose relevant financial, professional, institutional, academic, or personal competing interests before accepting an invitation.

Potential conflicts include:

Close personal relationships with authors.
Direct supervisory relationships.
Significant current research collaborations.
Financial interests related to the research.
Academic competition or professional disputes.
Other relationships that may compromise impartiality.

Reviewers who cannot provide an objective assessment should decline the invitation or inform the handling editor.

The editor is responsible for determining whether a disclosed interest can be appropriately managed.

8. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to conduct their assessments professionally and objectively.

Reviewers should:

Accept assignments only when they have appropriate expertise.
Disclose relevant competing interests.
Respect manuscript confidentiality.
Provide constructive and evidence-based comments.
Distinguish major scientific concerns from minor editorial issues.
Evaluate research methods and findings fairly.
Identify significant ethical concerns when reasonably apparent.
Avoid discriminatory, abusive, or inappropriate language.
Refrain from using unpublished manuscript information for personal advantage.
Communicate promptly when unable to complete an agreed review.

Reviewer comments should focus on the scholarly content of the manuscript rather than personal characteristics of the authors.

9. Confidentiality of Peer Review

Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential scholarly materials.

Reviewers and editors must not distribute manuscripts, disclose confidential information, or use unpublished research findings without authorization.

Confidential materials may include:

Manuscript text.
Research data.
Figures and tables.
Supplementary materials.
Reviewer reports.
Editorial correspondence.
Author responses.

Reviewers must not involve additional individuals in the review process without appropriate editorial authorization.

Confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the review assignment.

10. Scientific and Methodological Assessment

Reviewers should assess manuscripts according to their scholarly contribution and methodological quality.

Relevant assessment criteria may include:

10.1 Originality and Contribution

The manuscript should make a meaningful contribution to psychological or behavioral knowledge.

Reviewers should consider whether the research question, theoretical framework, findings, or methodological approach adds value to the existing literature.

10.2 Research Design

The research design should be appropriate to the stated objectives and research questions.

Reviewers should consider sampling, measurement procedures, research context, and potential sources of bias.

10.3 Data Analysis

Analytical methods should be appropriate to the research design and type of data.

Results must be reported accurately and transparently.

10.4 Interpretation and Discussion

Conclusions should be supported by the findings and should not exceed the available evidence.

The discussion should engage critically with relevant theories and previous research.

10.5 Ethical Compliance

The research should demonstrate appropriate ethical consideration, including consent, confidentiality, and participant protection where applicable.

11. Assessment of Quantitative Research

For quantitative psychological and behavioral research, reviewers should consider:

Clarity of research hypotheses.
Appropriateness of study design.
Sampling procedures and sample adequacy.
Operational definitions of variables.
Validity and reliability of measurement instruments.
Appropriateness of statistical techniques.
Reporting of relevant statistical assumptions.
Effect sizes and uncertainty estimates where appropriate.
Treatment of missing data.
Interpretation of statistical findings.
Transparency of methodological limitations.

Reviewers should distinguish between methodological weaknesses that can be addressed through revision and fundamental problems that undermine the validity of the study.

12. Assessment of Qualitative Research

For qualitative research, reviewers should consider:

Clarity of the research question.
Suitability of the qualitative approach.
Appropriateness of participant selection.
Adequacy of data collection procedures.
Transparency of coding and analysis.
Credibility and trustworthiness of findings.
Researcher reflexivity where relevant.
Ethical handling of participant narratives.
Relationship between evidence and interpretation.
Contextual and theoretical contribution.

Qualitative manuscripts should be evaluated using criteria appropriate to their methodological traditions rather than inappropriate quantitative standards.

13. Assessment of Mixed-Methods Research

For mixed-methods studies, reviewers should assess the quality of the quantitative and qualitative components and the appropriateness of their integration.

Relevant considerations include:

Rationale for combining methods.
Coherence of the overall research design.
Quality of each methodological component.
Procedures for integrating data or findings.
Interpretation of convergent or divergent results.
Contribution of the combined approach to the research objectives.

14. Assessment of Psychological Instruments

Manuscripts involving psychological scales, questionnaires, tests, or other assessment instruments should be evaluated for appropriate measurement practices.

Reviewers should consider:

Conceptual definition of the measured construct.
Suitability of the instrument.
Evidence supporting score validity.
Reliability or measurement precision.
Translation and cultural adaptation procedures.
Scoring and interpretation methods.
Ethical and intellectual property considerations.

Reviewers should not assume that an instrument is appropriate solely because it has been used in previous publications.

15. Research Ethics Assessment

Reviewers and editors should identify relevant ethical concerns during manuscript evaluation.

These may include:

Missing or inadequate ethics statements.
Inappropriate informed consent procedures.
Risks involving vulnerable participants.
Insufficient protection of sensitive information.
Misleading descriptions of psychological interventions.
Inappropriate disclosure of identifiable participant information.
Potential fabrication or falsification of data.

Where serious concerns arise, the handling editor may request clarification or refer the matter for appropriate investigation.

Peer review does not replace formal research ethics review by a competent institutional body.

16. Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports should provide clear, specific, respectful, and constructive feedback.

Reports should ordinarily address:

Overall scholarly contribution.
Major methodological strengths and weaknesses.
Adequacy of analysis and reporting.
Interpretation of findings.
Ethical considerations.
Clarity and organization.
Recommendations for improvement.

Reviewers should support significant criticisms with clear reasoning.

Requests for additional citations must be academically justified and should not be used to increase citations to the reviewer's own work without legitimate scholarly relevance.

Reviewers should avoid making publication guarantees or communicating editorial decisions directly to authors.

17. Editorial Evaluation of Reviewer Reports

Editors must evaluate reviewer reports critically rather than relying solely on numerical recommendations or majority opinion.

The handling editor should consider:

Reviewer expertise.
Quality of the reasoning provided.
Consistency of comments with the manuscript evidence.
Methodological relevance.
Potential conflicts of interest.
Whether concerns can reasonably be addressed through revision.

Conflicting reviewer recommendations may require further editorial assessment or additional independent review.

The final editorial decision rests with the authorized editor.

18. Editorial Decisions

Following editorial assessment and, where applicable, peer review, the journal may issue decisions consistent with its adopted OJS workflow.

Possible outcomes include:

18.1 Acceptance

The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and ethical requirements and may proceed to the relevant production stages.

18.2 Revision Required

The manuscript requires changes before a further editorial decision can be made.

Revisions may concern methodology, analysis, interpretation, reporting, ethics documentation, or presentation.

18.3 Resubmission for Further Review

Substantial revision may be necessary before the manuscript can undergo further evaluation.

18.4 Rejection

The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements, falls outside its scope, or contains weaknesses that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

The precise decision categories must match the journal's actual editorial workflow.

An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

19. Manuscript Revision Process

Authors invited to revise a manuscript should respond carefully to editorial and reviewer comments.

The revised submission should ordinarily include:

A revised manuscript.
A response explaining how comments were addressed.
Clear identification of substantive changes.
Reasoned explanations where particular recommendations were not adopted.
Additional documentation requested by the editor.

Authors are not required to accept every reviewer suggestion when a scientifically justified alternative is available.

Editors should evaluate whether the revised manuscript adequately addresses material concerns.

Additional review may be requested when necessary.

20. Timeliness and Communication

The journal recognizes the importance of timely and professional editorial communication.

Editors and reviewers should seek to complete assigned responsibilities within the timelines established by the journal.

When delays occur, the editorial office should provide appropriate communication to affected authors.

Reviewers who cannot complete an assignment within the agreed period should inform the handling editor promptly.

The journal should avoid publishing unsupported guarantees concerning review or acceptance times.

21. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must comply with the journal's Generative AI Policy.

Unpublished manuscripts, confidential reviewer reports, research data, and editorial correspondence must not be uploaded to external AI systems in ways that violate confidentiality, intellectual property rights, or applicable data protection requirements.

Reviewers must not delegate their scholarly judgment or responsibility for manuscript assessment to generative AI tools.

AI-generated evaluations must not be presented as independent expert review without appropriate human assessment and compliance with journal policy.

Any permitted use of automated tools must be transparent, secure, and consistent with the journal's established restrictions.

Human reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their reports.

22. Prevention of Peer Review Manipulation

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku prohibits manipulation of the peer review process.

Potential forms of manipulation include:

Fabricated reviewer identities.
False reviewer contact information.
Unauthorized reviewer impersonation.
Submission of reviews by individuals other than assigned reviewers.
Undisclosed coordination intended to distort review outcomes.
Coercive citation requests.
Improper influence over reviewer selection.
Attempts to obtain confidential reviewer information.
Other practices intended to compromise independent scholarly assessment.

Editors should apply appropriate verification procedures when concerns arise about reviewer identity or independence.

Suspected manipulation will be evaluated under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

23. Author-Suggested Reviewers

Where the journal permits authors to suggest potential reviewers, such suggestions must be treated as advisory.

Authors must not provide fabricated reviewer identities or misleading contact information.

The handling editor remains responsible for independently evaluating reviewer suitability and potential conflicts of interest.

The journal is not obligated to select reviewers suggested by authors.

Authors must not attempt to influence reviewers outside the authorized editorial process.

24. Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members must be handled through procedures that protect editorial independence.

An editor who is an author of a manuscript must not oversee its review, select reviewers, access confidential decision-making beyond their author role, or determine its editorial outcome.

The manuscript should be assigned to an appropriately independent editor.

Editorial position or institutional authority must not result in preferential treatment.

25. Reviewer Misconduct

Concerns regarding reviewer misconduct may include:

Breaches of confidentiality.
Undisclosed material conflicts of interest.
Misappropriation of unpublished research.
Discriminatory or abusive comments.
Deliberately misleading assessments.
Inappropriate citation pressure.
Unauthorized use of artificial intelligence.
Manipulation of the review process.

The journal will assess credible concerns fairly and proportionately.

Possible responses include seeking clarification, disregarding a compromised review, appointing another reviewer, discontinuing the review assignment, or taking further appropriate action.

26. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they can identify a material procedural error, significant factual misunderstanding, or credible concern about fairness.

Appeals must be submitted through the journal's official communication channels.

An appeal should include:

Manuscript identification information.
The decision being appealed.
Specific grounds for reconsideration.
Supporting evidence.
The requested outcome.

Appeals will be considered in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Disagreement with a reviewer recommendation alone does not automatically justify reversal of an editorial decision.

27. Post-Publication Peer Review Concerns

Concerns about the integrity of the peer review process may arise after publication.

Where credible evidence suggests that the review process was compromised, the journal may examine the editorial record and seek independent assessment.

The journal will consider whether the concern affected the reliability or integrity of the published work.

Possible responses include clarification, additional evaluation, correction, expression of concern, or retraction when justified.

A procedural irregularity does not automatically require retraction if the published findings remain reliable and no other grounds for retraction are established.

28. Record Keeping and Confidentiality

The journal should maintain appropriate records of peer review activities, including:

Reviewer invitations.
Reviewer acceptance or decline.
Reviewer reports.
Editorial correspondence.
Revision submissions.
Editorial decisions.
Conflict-of-interest disclosures.
Relevant integrity concerns.

Records must be managed securely and in accordance with applicable privacy, confidentiality, and retention requirements.

Access should be limited to authorized individuals with legitimate editorial responsibilities.

29. Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for overseeing the integrity and consistent application of the peer review process.

Responsibilities include:

Maintaining appropriate review standards.
Protecting editorial independence.
Supporting qualified reviewer selection.
Addressing material conflicts of interest.
Evaluating serious procedural concerns.
Ensuring fair editorial decisions.
Overseeing responses to suspected review manipulation.
Promoting continuous improvement in review quality.

These responsibilities may be delegated appropriately while maintaining clear accountability.

30. Continuous Improvement of Peer Review

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku will seek to improve its peer review procedures through periodic evaluation.

Relevant areas may include:

Reviewer expertise and diversity.
Review quality and constructiveness.
Timeliness of editorial processing.
Consistency of editorial decisions.
Effectiveness of conflict-of-interest management.
Research ethics assessment.
Prevention of review manipulation.
Author and reviewer communication.
Compliance with relevant COPE guidance.

Material changes to the journal's peer review model or procedures should be reflected in its publicly available policies.

31. Policy Review

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku will periodically review this policy to maintain alignment with developments in scholarly publishing, psychological research methodology, and relevant COPE guidance.

The journal will seek consistency between this policy and its Reviewer Guidelines, Editorial Decision Policy, Conflicts of Interest Policy, Generative AI Policy, Complaints and Appeals Policy, and Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

Substantive revisions should be communicated through the journal website.