Peer Review Process

KOMPAK: Jurnal Ilmiah Komputerisasi Akuntansi implements a double-blind peer review process to ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated objectively and based solely on their scholarly merit. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review cycle.

Review Procedure

Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment followed by an external peer review. Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area. The review process is coordinated by an Action Editor and supervised by the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on several criteria, including:

  • originality and novelty of the research

  • methodological rigor and validity

  • relevance to the journal’s scope

  • clarity and quality of presentation

  • ethical compliance and academic integrity

  • contribution to the fields of accounting, information systems, management, economics, and related disciplines

All manuscripts are also subject to plagiarism screening during the editorial pre-check stage.

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

KOMPAK maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer review process. Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share, discuss, or use the content prior to publication.

Editors and reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest (financial, academic, or personal) and must recuse themselves from the review process when necessary.

The journal follows internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and adheres to the best-practice guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Review Timeline

KOMPAK aims to maintain an efficient and transparent editorial process. Under normal circumstances, the journal targets:

  • First editorial decision: approximately 2 weeks after submission

  • Submission to final acceptance: approximately three months

  • Submission to publication: typically within 90 days, depending on reviewer availability and the timeliness of author revisions.

The typical review workflow includes:

  1. Editorial Screening and Plagiarism Check (3–5 days)

  2. Reviewer Assignment (3–5 days)

  3. External Double-Blind Review (2–3 weeks)

  4. Author Revision (4 weeks)

  5. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision (1–2 weeks)

  6. Copyediting, Typesetting, and Proof Approval (21 days)

Accepted articles are then scheduled for publication in the next available issue.

Editorial Decisions

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject/Decline

Authors will receive reviewer comments and editorial feedback to guide revisions where applicable.