Peer Review Process and AI Use Policy

 

Paradigma POLISTAAT: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Politik maintains a Double-Blind Peer Review policy to ensure objectivity, transparency, and academic integrity in the publication process.

All research articles published in Paradigma POLISTAAT: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Politik undergo a double-blind peer review, the key characteristics of which are outlined below:

  •  Double-blind peer review is a process used in academic publishing to ensure impartiality and prevent bias. In this method, both the author and the reviewer remain anonymous to each other. Identifying information is removed from the manuscript before it is sent to reviewers so that the reviewer does not know the author’s identity and vice versa.
  • The process begins when an author submits a manuscript. The editor first evaluates its suitability for the journal and then assigns qualified reviewers. The editor maintains confidentiality throughout the review process. Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations, which are returned to the author for revision. This process may be repeated until the paper meets the journal’s publication standards.
  • The goal of double-blind peer review is to minimize potential bias and promote fairness. This system prevents conflicts of interest and ensures that manuscripts are judged solely on academic merit, not on the author’s identity, institution, or reputation.
  • Despite some limitations, double-blind peer review remains a cornerstone of IJIR’s editorial policy, ensuring that every published article upholds rigorous academic and ethical standards.

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

In alignment with Paradigma POLISTAAT: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Politik's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the publication process is regulated as follows:

For Authors: AI tools may be used only as assistive instruments—for example, to improve language clarity, grammar, or formatting. However, AI must not be used to generate, fabricate, or manipulate research data, analysis, or references. Authors must disclose any significant use of AI tools in the methodology or acknowledgments section.

For Editors: Editors may use AI-based tools to support technical or administrative tasks, such as plagiarism detection, reference checking, and manuscript screening. However, all editorial judgments and final publication decisions must remain entirely human-driven.

For Reviewers: Reviewers may use AI only to support comprehension (e.g., grammar checking or citation verification) but must not rely on AI systems to form review opinions or recommendations. The integrity and confidentiality of the peer review process must be maintained at all times.

This policy ensures that AI serves as a supporting tool rather than a decision-making entity, preserving human accountability, academic integrity, and ethical responsibility throughout the publication process.

Guidelines for Editors

Paradigma POLISTAAT: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Politik relies on its Editors, who are experts in their respective fields, to oversee the peer review process and ensure the academic integrity of the journal. Editors are responsible for managing the review of manuscripts, making well-founded recommendations regarding acceptance or rejection, and attracting high-quality submissions.

These guidelines are based on the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

  1. Selecting Reviewers
  • Editors must ensure that suitable reviewers are selected for each manuscript—individuals with relevant expertise and without disqualifying competing interests.
  • Every submission should have at least two assigned reviewers. Editors are advised to refrain from selecting only the reviewers recommended by authors unless there is a strong justification for doing so.
  • Editors should discontinue working with reviewers who consistently submit poor-quality, discourteous, or late reviews.
  • A diverse pool of reviewers should be maintained, drawing from multiple sources (not only personal networks), such as bibliographic databases, previous author suggestions, and reviewer directories.
  1. Managing the Review Process
  • Editors are expected to handle manuscripts promptly, aiming to provide an initial decision within 3 months.
  • Editors should manage all papers assigned to them, regardless of specific thematic alignment, in the interest of fairness and efficiency.
  • Written editorial feedback must be provided to authors for every editorial decision, even when based directly on reviewers’ comments. In such cases, a summary referencing the reviewers’ main points may suffice.
  • Any significant deviation from IJIR’s stated peer review policy must be justifiable and documented.
  • Editors must ensure reviewers declare potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment.
  • Editors are expected to monitor reviewer performance and maintain high standards of quality and professionalism.
  • Editors should encourage reviewers to evaluate:
    • Ethical aspects and potential research or publication misconduct (e.g., unethical design, data fabrication/manipulation).
    • Originality, redundancy, and any signs of plagiarism.
  1. Editorial Decisions
  • Editors’ recommendations should be based on the peer review reports as well as their judgment regarding a manuscript’s originality, clarity, methodological rigor, and relevance to Paradigma POLISTAAT: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Politik ’s scope.
  • Editors may recommend desk rejection if a submission does not meet the basic quality threshold or journal standards.
  • Once accepted, a manuscript should not be rejected unless serious issues (e.g., ethical violations, data falsification) are discovered.
  • Successor editors should not overturn previous editorial decisions unless critical problems are identified.
  • Editors must report cases of suspected misconduct or authorship disputes to the Editor-in-Chief for further investigation.
  1. Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief and Editors
  • Editors must transmit reviewers’ comments to authors in full unless these include offensive or defamatory content.
  • Editors must respond to any suspicion or allegations of misconduct, applicable to both published and unpublished works.
  • They should not dismiss concerns outright but instead seek a response from the author(s) and escalate to the Editor-in-Chief where appropriate.
  • Editors should support investigations into misconduct and cooperate with relevant institutions if needed.
  • The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for responding promptly to complaints and must ensure that a transparent mechanism exists for escalating unresolved issues. This mechanism is described in the [Peer Review Process] section of the journal website.

 

Guidelines for Reviewers

Responsibility of Peer Reviewer

The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

  • Does the manuscript requested to be reviewed match your expertise? If you receive a script that covers topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please recommend an alternative reviewer.
  • Do you have the time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a longer period, notify the editor as soon as possible or suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Is there any potential conflict of interest?

Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

  • Title: is it clearly illustrating the article?
  • Abstract: does it reflect the contents of the article?
  • Introduction: does it describe the accuracy of matters submitted by the author and clearly state the problem being considered?  What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting? Typically, the introduction should summarize the context of the relevant research, and explain the findings of the research or other findings, if any, offered for discussion. The introduction consists of a statement of the problem or purpose; the relevance of the topics; the importance of the topic; contribution to the literature; drawing and building upon relevant literature; and organization.
  • Theoretical/Conceptual Framework: is the theoretical basis or reference used appropriately for this study? Does the author utilize relevant literature?
  • Method: does the author accurately describe how the data is collected? is the exposure design suitable for the answer to the question? have the tools and materials used been adequately explained? and does the article exposure describe what type of data is recorded; right in describing the measurement?
  • Result and Discussion: this is where the author must explain the findings of his/her research. It should be laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider whether the appropriate analysis has been carried out.
  • Conclusion: Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed? are the claims in this section supported by fair results and quite reasonable? does the author compare the research results with other previous ones? do the results of research written in the article contradict the previous theories? does the conclusion explain how better scientific research is to be followed up?
  • References: are the references well laid out according to the APA model? are the references styled by using a plagiarism checker application? Are the references mostly from the most recent article sources?
  • Tables and Pictures: If the manuscript includes tables or figures, what do they add to the manuscript? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous? Is it suitable with the referred explanation by showing data that is easy to interpret and understandable for the readers?
  • Writing Styles: Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?  All exposure should be in good Bahasa Indonesia or English and written in good, cohesive, and coherent grammar. It is easy to understand and interesting to read.
  • Mechanics: spelling, punctuation, and reference format.

Final Review

  • All results of the review submitted by reviewers are confidential.
  • If you want to discuss the article with a colleague, kindly inform the editor.
  • Do not contact the author directly.
  • Ethical issues: Plagiarism: If you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please let the editor know the details. Fraud: It is very difficult to detect a fraud category, but if you suspect the results in the article are not true, please inform the editor.

Complete "The Review" by the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendation for the article will be considered when the editor makes a final decision and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.
When you write a comment, please show the part of the comment that is only intended for the editor and parts that can be returned to the author.

Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or problems that you may encounter.