Review Process

JEINSA: Jurnal Ekonomi Ichsan Sidenreng Rappang

JEINSA: Jurnal Ekonomi Ichsan Sidenreng Rappang is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, originality, integrity, and transparency through a rigorous peer-review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo editorial screening and independent peer review to ensure their relevance, scientific merit, methodological rigor, and contribution to the development of economic and management sciences.

JEINSA applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript’s academic quality, and compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical policies.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system, preferably Open Journal Systems (OJS). Submissions must follow the journal’s author guidelines, manuscript template, citation style, and formatting requirements.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submissions are original, have not been published previously, and are not under consideration by another journal. Relevant declarations concerning authorship, funding, conflicts of interest, and research ethics must be provided where applicable.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration. This screening covers:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of JEINSA.

• Originality and potential scholarly contribution.

• Compliance with the author guidelines and manuscript template.

• Completeness of the submission and required declarations.

• Basic academic quality, structure, and clarity.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external review.

3. Plagiarism and Publication Ethics Screening

Manuscripts undergo an originality and publication ethics assessment using plagiarism-detection tools and editorial checks, where available. The editorial team evaluates similarity reports in context rather than relying solely on a numerical similarity score.

Submissions suspected of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, or other publication ethics violations may be returned for clarification or rejected in accordance with the journal’s policies.

4. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript’s topic and methodology.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, subject expertise, and ability to provide an objective assessment. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartiality may be compromised.

5. Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript’s academic quality, including:

• Relevance and significance of the research problem.

• Originality and contribution to economic and management scholarship.

• Adequacy of the theoretical framework and literature review.

• Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology.

• Accuracy and interpretation of data, analysis, and findings.

• Consistency between the results, discussion, and conclusions.

• Quality of academic writing, references, tables, and figures.

• Compliance with research integrity and publication ethics standards.

Reviewers provide constructive comments to the authors and a recommendation to the editor. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not replace the editor’s final decision.

6. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers’ reports and the manuscript’s overall quality, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

a. Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revisions, subject to final editorial checks.

b. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications before it can be accepted.

c. Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

d. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent review before making a decision.

7. Author Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision decision must revise their manuscripts in response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments.

The revised submission should include:

• A revised manuscript with changes clearly identified, where requested.

• A point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment.

• A clear explanation for any recommendation that has not been adopted.

Authors should resubmit the revised manuscript through the journal’s submission system within the deadline specified in the editorial decision letter. An extension may be requested from the editor when justified.

8. Final Evaluation and Decision

The editor evaluates the revised manuscript and the authors’ responses to determine whether the requested improvements have been adequately addressed. When necessary, the manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.

The editor then issues the final decision. A manuscript may still be rejected if substantial concerns remain unresolved or if the revisions fail to meet the journal’s standards.

9. Copyediting, Proofreading, and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout formatting, reference verification, and proofreading. Authors may be asked to review the final proof to identify typographical or production errors.

Following completion of the required editorial and production checks, the article is published in the relevant JEINSA issue in accordance with the journal’s publication schedule and access policies.

Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents throughout the review process. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.

JEINSA is committed to fair, independent, and evidence-based editorial decisions. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to disclose relevant conflicts of interest and uphold the principles of academic integrity.

The journal’s editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, and ethical compliance, without discrimination based on authors’ personal characteristics, institutional affiliations, or academic seniority.