Peer Review Process

KOMPAK: Jurnal Ilmiah Komputerisasi Akuntansi implements a double-blind peer review system to ensure the independence, objectivity, and academic integrity of manuscript evaluation. Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers' identities remain confidential throughout the evaluation process.

All submitted research and review articles undergo initial editorial screening and external peer review before acceptance. The journal aims to complete the overall editorial and publication process within approximately four months, depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and publication readiness.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Estimated duration: 1 week (First Decision)

Every submitted manuscript undergoes preliminary assessment to determine its suitability for further evaluation. The editorial team examines:

  1. Relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope.

  2. Compliance with manuscript formatting and Author Guidelines.

  3. Originality, academic quality, and scholarly contribution.

  4. Appropriateness of research methodology and analysis.

  5. Compliance with research ethics and plagiarism screening requirements.

  6. Accuracy and relevance of references and supporting materials.

Manuscripts meeting these requirements proceed to external peer review. Submissions that do not satisfy the journal's academic or ethical standards may be returned for correction or declined without external review.

The first editorial decision is generally communicated within one week of submission.

2. Editorial Assignment and Responsibilities

Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor and Section Editor.

The Handling Editor coordinates manuscript evaluation, reviewer assignments, communication, and revision monitoring. The Section Editor provides subject-specific assessment and supports the evaluation of reviewer recommendations.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

3. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two and a maximum of four independent reviewers, selected according to their academic qualifications, methodological expertise, and relevance to the manuscript.

Reviewers may represent complementary disciplines, including accounting, auditing, taxation, financial management, accounting information systems, and financial data analytics.

Additional reviewers may be appointed when assessments differ substantially or further expertise is necessary.

Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline assignments that could compromise their independence. At least two valid independent review reports are required before a manuscript can be accepted.

4. Double-Blind Review and Confidentiality

KOMPAK maintains anonymity between authors and reviewers during peer review.

Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and identifying information from the manuscript file submitted for review.

Reviewers and editors must protect unpublished manuscripts, research data, and editorial communications from unauthorized disclosure. Confidential materials must not be used for personal benefit or uploaded to unauthorized AI platforms.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  1. Originality and significance of the research.

  2. Relevance to the journal's disciplinary scope.

  3. Clarity of research objectives and theoretical foundations.

  4. Appropriateness and transparency of methodology.

  5. Reliability of data and validity of analysis.

  6. Consistency between findings, discussion, and conclusions.

  7. Quality of financial reporting, analytical models, or accounting information system evaluations, where applicable.

  8. Compliance with academic writing, citation, and publication ethics.

  9. Contribution to accounting knowledge, practice, or related information systems.

Reviewer comments must be constructive, evidence-based, and supported by clear academic reasoning.

6. Peer Review Rounds

Estimated duration: 4–6 weeks per round

Each review round generally requires four to six weeks, depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.

Manuscripts may undergo several review rounds when substantial methodological, analytical, or theoretical improvements remain necessary.

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers for reassessment. Minor revisions may be evaluated by the Handling Editor and Section Editor when further external review is unnecessary.

Additional review rounds do not guarantee acceptance and may extend the overall processing time.

7. Author Revision and Resubmission

Revision deadline: Up to 6 weeks per round

Authors receiving revision requests are given up to six weeks to address the reviewers' and editors' comments.

Revised submissions must include:

  • The revised manuscript.

  • A point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

  • A clear explanation of the modifications made.

  • Justification for any recommendations not adopted.

Revisions must be submitted through OJS within the designated period. Extension requests should be communicated to the editorial office before the deadline.

Manuscripts that are not revised within the specified period without an approved extension may be closed or treated as new submissions.

8. Editorial Decisions

Following peer review and revision, the editor may issue the following decisions:

Accepted: The manuscript satisfies the journal's scholarly and ethical requirements and proceeds to publication administration.

Minor Revision: Limited modifications are required without substantial changes to the research design, analysis, or principal conclusions.

Major Revision: Significant improvements are necessary in the theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, discussion, or presentation.

Declined: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or fails to adequately address essential academic or ethical concerns.

When revisions are requested, the manuscript may undergo further assessment until an acceptance or rejection decision is reached.

The final decision is based on scholarly merit, reviewer assessments, author responses, and independent editorial judgment.

9. Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Handling Editor and Section Editor assess the quality and supporting arguments of each report.

The editorial team may request clarification, assign an additional independent reviewer, or conduct further evaluation.

Editorial decisions are not determined solely by the number of reviewers supporting a particular recommendation but by the strength of the scientific evidence and the manuscript's overall academic quality.

10. Research Integrity and Special Submissions

KOMPAK applies the same ethical and academic standards to regular submissions, invited manuscripts, and research articles submitted to special issues.

Manuscripts submitted by editors, reviewers, Editorial Board members, or individuals affiliated with the publisher must be handled independently. Individuals with conflicts of interest must not participate in the evaluation or decision concerning their own manuscripts.

Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, authorship misconduct, or peer review manipulation will be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Allegations of Research Misconduct policies.

11. Acceptance and Publication Administration

Following formal editorial acceptance, authors receive a provisional Letter of Acceptance (LoA) and an Article Processing Charge (APC) invoice.

Authors must submit proof of payment through OJS or the journal's official email address. The final LoA is issued after the finance department confirms payment.

APC payment does not influence reviewer selection, manuscript assessment, or editorial acceptance decisions. Applicable fee exemptions follow the journal's Waiver Policy.

12. Production and Publication

Estimated production duration: 2–3 weeks

Following completion of editorial and administrative requirements, accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, layout preparation, metadata verification, and final proofreading.

Articles are published through the official KOMPAK website, either through early publication when available or according to the scheduled issues.

KOMPAK publishes twice annually, in July and December. Publication timing depends on production readiness and the article queue.

13. Editorial and Publication Timeline

KOMPAK follows the processing schedule below:

Stage Estimated Duration
Initial Editorial Screening (First Decision) 1 week
Peer Review 4–6 weeks per round
Author Revision Up to 6 weeks per round
Additional Review and Editorial Decision According to review requirements
APC Verification and Final LoA Following payment confirmation
Article Production 2–3 weeks
Overall Editorial and Publication Process Approximately 4 months
Publication Early publication or scheduled issue

The four-month processing period is an operational estimate, not a guaranteed deadline. Additional review rounds, revision delays, reviewer availability, and publication queues may extend the process.

14. Transparency and Editorial Independence

KOMPAK maintains independent editorial decision-making throughout manuscript evaluation and publication.

All research and review articles are assessed through double-blind peer review involving two to four independent reviewers.

The publisher, sponsors, authors, and other interested parties must not interfere with the scientific assessment or final editorial decision.

Through this process, KOMPAK seeks to maintain credible, transparent, and accountable scholarly publishing in accounting, accounting information systems, and financial management.