Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

KOMPAK: Jurnal Ilmiah Komputerisasi Akuntansi applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure that every manuscript is evaluated objectively, independently, and solely on the basis of its academic quality and scholarly contribution. In this process, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout the review process.

All research articles and review articles submitted to the journal must undergo editorial screening and external peer review before they can be accepted for publication.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team to determine whether it:

  1. is relevant to the aims and scope of the journal;

  2. complies with the journal’s author guidelines and manuscript format;

  3. demonstrates sufficient academic quality, originality, and scholarly contribution;

  4. presents a clear research problem, appropriate methodology, and valid analysis;

  5. complies with research and publication ethics;

  6. uses appropriate and relevant references; and

  7. passes plagiarism and similarity screening.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, do not meet the minimum academic standard, contain serious ethical concerns, or fail to follow the journal’s submission requirements may be declined during the initial screening without being sent for external review.

Passing the initial editorial screening does not guarantee acceptance.

2. Editorial Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor and a Section Editor.

The Handling Editor is responsible for coordinating the editorial and peer review process, monitoring the progress of the manuscript, evaluating reviewer reports, assessing author revisions, and preparing an editorial recommendation.

The Section Editor assists in evaluating the manuscript’s disciplinary relevance, identifying reviewers with suitable expertise, assessing the quality of the reviewer reports, and providing an additional editorial evaluation.

The Handling Editor and Section Editor work together throughout the review process. The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor who has no conflict of interest with the manuscript.

3. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two and a maximum of four independent reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area, research methodology, and disciplinary context of the manuscript. Depending on the topic, the journal may appoint reviewers with complementary areas of expertise.

For example:

  • one reviewer may evaluate the accounting, management, economics, auditing, taxation, or business aspects of the manuscript; and

  • another reviewer may evaluate the information systems, computerized accounting, software development, data analytics, artificial intelligence, decision-support systems, or methodological aspects.

Additional reviewers may be appointed when:

  1. the manuscript covers several disciplines;

  2. additional methodological or technical expertise is required;

  3. the initial reviewer reports provide substantially different recommendations;

  4. a reviewer report is considered insufficient or inappropriate;

  5. an ethical or research-integrity concern requires specialist assessment; or

  6. the editors consider that further independent evaluation is necessary.

Reviewer selection is based on the following criteria:

  1. expertise relevant to the manuscript;

  2. appropriate academic qualifications and publication experience;

  3. independence from the authors and their institutions;

  4. absence of personal, academic, professional, institutional, or financial conflicts of interest;

  5. ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment; and

  6. availability to complete the review within the required period.

Whenever possible, reviewers are selected from institutions different from those of the authors.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers or identify individuals who should not be invited because of a possible conflict of interest. However, the final selection of reviewers remains entirely under the authority of the editors.

4. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must conduct their evaluations independently and objectively.

A reviewer must decline the review invitation when:

  1. the manuscript is outside the reviewer’s area of expertise;

  2. the reviewer has collaborated with, supervised, or been supervised by one or more authors;

  3. the reviewer is affiliated with the same institution as the authors;

  4. the reviewer has a personal, professional, academic, institutional, or financial conflict of interest;

  5. the reviewer is directly involved in competing or related unpublished research;

  6. the reviewer cannot provide an impartial evaluation; or

  7. the reviewer cannot complete the review within the specified period.

When a reviewer declines, becomes unavailable, fails to submit a sufficiently substantive report, or is found to have a conflict of interest, the editor appoints a replacement reviewer.

A manuscript cannot be accepted on the basis of only one reviewer report. At least two valid and independent reviewer reports must be obtained before an acceptance decision is made.

5. Double-Blind Review

KOMPAK applies a double-blind review model.

Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, author biographies, and other identifying information from the anonymized manuscript file before submission.

The editorial team checks the manuscript for identifying information before it is sent to reviewers.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors, and authors must not attempt to identify or contact the reviewers.

Reviewer identities are kept confidential and are not disclosed to the authors.

6. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. originality and novelty of the research;

  2. relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;

  3. clarity of the research problem, objectives, and contribution;

  4. adequacy and relevance of the literature review;

  5. appropriateness and transparency of the research methodology;

  6. validity and reliability of the data and analysis;

  7. consistency between the research objectives, results, discussion, and conclusions;

  8. quality of tables, figures, models, systems, applications, or software evaluations;

  9. clarity, coherence, and academic quality of the writing;

  10. compliance with research and publication ethics;

  11. appropriate citation of previous research; and

  12. contribution to accounting, information systems, computerized accounting, management, economics, business, technology, and related disciplines.

Reviewers are expected to provide specific, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful comments.

Reviewer reports that contain only a recommendation without sufficient academic justification may be considered inadequate. In such cases, the editor may request clarification or appoint an additional reviewer.

7. Peer Review Rounds

A manuscript may undergo several rounds of review before a final decision is made.

The number of review rounds depends on the quality of the manuscript, the extent of the required revisions, the reviewer recommendations, and the authors’ responses.

The typical review process may include:

  1. First Review Round;

  2. First Author Revision;

  3. Second Review Round;

  4. Second Author Revision; and

  5. Additional Review Round, when necessary.

Manuscripts receiving a Major Revision decision are normally returned to the original reviewers for further assessment.

Manuscripts receiving a Minor Revision decision may be evaluated by the Handling Editor and Section Editor when the required changes are limited and do not require further specialist assessment. However, the editors may return the revised manuscript to the reviewers when necessary.

The journal may conduct more than two review rounds when important methodological, analytical, ethical, or substantive issues have not been sufficiently resolved.

Submitting a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

8. Author Revision

When revision is requested, authors must submit:

  1. a revised manuscript;

  2. a detailed response-to-reviewers document;

  3. a point-by-point explanation of how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed; and

  4. a clear justification for any recommendation that has not been followed.

Authors should indicate all revisions using tracked changes, highlighted text, or another method requested by the journal.

The revised manuscript is evaluated based on the adequacy of the revisions and the authors’ responses to the reviewer and editor comments.

Authors who fail to submit revisions within the specified period without requesting an extension may have their manuscript closed or treated as a new submission.

9. Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

When reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the Handling Editor and Section Editor evaluate the quality, relevance, and academic reasoning of each report.

The editors may:

  1. request clarification from one or more reviewers;

  2. request an additional revision from the authors;

  3. appoint a third or fourth independent reviewer;

  4. obtain additional methodological or subject-area expertise; or

  5. conduct an additional editorial assessment.

The final decision is not based merely on the number of reviewers supporting a particular recommendation. It is based on the academic quality of the manuscript, the strength of the reviewer arguments, the authors’ responses, and the independent judgment of the editors.

10. Editorial Decisions

After the peer review process, the journal may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication and proceeds to copyediting, typesetting, metadata verification, and proof approval.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially alter the research design, analysis, or conclusions.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial improvements to its theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, discussion, presentation, or ethical documentation.

A Major Revision decision does not guarantee acceptance.

Reject or Decline

The manuscript is not suitable for publication because of serious concerns regarding scope, originality, methodology, validity, academic quality, ethical compliance, or failure to address previous revision requirements.

Authors receive anonymized reviewer reports and relevant editorial comments when the manuscript has undergone external peer review.

11. Final Editorial Decision

The Handling Editor and Section Editor assess:

  1. the reports of two to four independent reviewers;

  2. the authors’ revisions and responses;

  3. the quality and validity of the manuscript;

  4. compliance with the journal’s academic and ethical standards; and

  5. the manuscript’s contribution to the journal’s field.

Based on this assessment, the Handling Editor prepares an editorial recommendation.

The final decision to accept or decline a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor who has no conflict of interest with the manuscript.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

12. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members, reviewers, or individuals affiliated with the journal’s publisher are not given preferential treatment.

Such manuscripts are assigned to an independent Handling Editor who is not involved as an author and has no conflict of interest.

The submitting editor or Editorial Board member is excluded from:

  1. selecting reviewers;

  2. accessing reviewer identities;

  3. participating in editorial discussions;

  4. evaluating reviewer reports; and

  5. making the final decision.

These manuscripts must undergo the same double-blind peer review process and must be evaluated by two to four independent reviewers.

13. Special Issues and Invited Manuscripts

Research articles and review articles submitted for special issues, thematic issues, or by invitation are subject to the same editorial screening, plagiarism checking, ethical requirements, and double-blind peer review process as regular submissions.

Invited status does not guarantee acceptance.

Guest Editors may coordinate the review process for special issues, but they must comply with the journal’s conflict-of-interest and reviewer-independence policies.

The Editor-in-Chief retains oversight of the editorial process and authority over final publication decisions.

Editorial materials such as editorials, corrections, retraction notices, expressions of concern, obituaries, and journal announcements may be assessed editorially rather than through external peer review. The review status of each content type is clearly identified.

14. Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial correspondence, and supporting materials are treated as confidential.

Editors and reviewers must not:

  1. share the manuscript with unauthorized persons;

  2. discuss unpublished content outside the review process;

  3. use unpublished information, data, methods, software, or ideas for personal or professional benefit;

  4. contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript; or

  5. upload confidential manuscript content to unauthorized public platforms or artificial intelligence systems.

A reviewer who wishes to involve another researcher in preparing a review must first obtain permission from the editor. Any approved contributor must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review process has been completed.

15. Ethical Concerns

When editors or reviewers identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, authorship problems, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of misconduct, the review process may be suspended while the matter is investigated.

The journal may request raw data, ethical approval documents, informed-consent records, software documentation, similarity reports, or other supporting evidence.

KOMPAK follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics.

16. Review Timeline

KOMPAK aims to maintain an efficient and transparent editorial process. The following timelines are approximate and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of review rounds:

  • Initial Editorial Screening and Plagiarism Check: 3–5 working days;

  • Assignment of Handling Editor and Section Editor: 3–5 working days;

  • Reviewer Selection and Invitation: 3–7 working days;

  • First External Review Round: approximately 2–4 weeks;

  • Author Revision: up to 4 weeks;

  • Subsequent Review Round: approximately 2–3 weeks;

  • Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision: approximately 1–2 weeks;

  • Copyediting, Typesetting, and Proof Approval: approximately 21 days.

The journal aims to provide the first editorial decision within approximately 4–6 weeks after submission.

The overall review process, from initial submission to the final editorial decision, is normally completed within 12 weeks (approximately 3 months).

Following acceptance, manuscripts proceed to copyediting, production, proof approval, and publication in the next available issue. The total time from submission to online publication is generally 3–4 months, depending on the number of revision rounds, reviewer availability, author responsiveness, and the journal's publication schedule.

The journal continuously monitors its editorial performance to maintain an efficient review process while ensuring fairness, transparency, and the quality of published articles. The stated timelines are targets rather than guaranteed deadlines.

17. Transparency Statement

All research articles and review articles published by KOMPAK must undergo editorial screening and external double-blind peer review by two to four independent reviewers.

The journal does not permit editors, publishers, sponsors, owners, institutions, or other parties to interfere with editorial decisions for commercial, political, personal, or institutional reasons.

Editorial decisions are based on academic merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance to the journal, ethical compliance, and the validity of the reported research.

Payment of publication fees, where applicable, does not influence reviewer selection, the peer review process, or the final editorial decision.