Peer Review Policy
- Introduction
The Indonesian Journal of Sustainability Accounting and Management (IJSAM) is committed to publishing high-quality, original, and ethically conducted research in sustainability accounting, management, economics, environmental studies, corporate governance, social responsibility, and related disciplines. The journal employs a rigorous peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of all published articles.
IJSAM follows the principles of transparency, fairness, confidentiality, and academic integrity throughout the editorial and peer review process and adheres to the ethical standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
- Peer Review Model
IJSAM operates a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review system, in which:
- Authors do not know the identities of reviewers.
- Reviewers do not know the identities of authors.
- Editorial staff responsible for handling manuscripts maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external review.
- Editorial Screening (Desk Review)
Upon submission, manuscripts are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor to determine whether they:
- Fit the aims and scope of the journal;
- Demonstrate sufficient originality and scholarly contribution;
- Meet academic writing and formatting requirements;
- Comply with ethical standards and journal policies;
- Contain adequate methodological rigor;
- Are free from obvious plagiarism or publication misconduct.
Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.
- Plagiarism and Similarity Screening
All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software (e.g., iThenticate or equivalent).
Manuscripts may be rejected if they contain:
- Plagiarism;
- Self-plagiarism or redundant publication;
- Unattributed text recycling;
- Fabricated or manipulated content;
- Duplicate submissions.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted work is original and properly cited.
- External Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers, and where necessary, a third reviewer may be invited.
Reviewers are selected based on:
- Subject expertise;
- Research experience;
- Publication record;
- Absence of conflicts of interest.
Reviewers are requested to evaluate:
- Originality and novelty;
- Relevance to sustainability scholarship;
- Theoretical contribution;
- Methodological rigor;
- Quality of analysis and interpretation;
- Clarity of presentation;
- Adequacy of references;
- Ethical compliance.
- Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication without further revision.
Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited modifications before publication.
Major Revision
Substantial revisions are necessary before further consideration.
Reject and Resubmit
The manuscript shows potential but requires extensive redevelopment and a new round of review.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards and will not be considered further.
The final editorial decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor
- Revision Process
Authors receiving revision requests must submit:
- A revised manuscript;
- A detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment;
- A tracked-changes version when requested.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
Failure to submit revisions within the specified deadline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration.
- Confidentiality
All manuscripts are confidential documents.
Editors and reviewers shall not:
- Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals;
- Use unpublished information for personal advantage;
- Disclose reviewer identities;
- Discuss manuscripts outside the review process.
- Conflict of Interest
Editors and reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including:
- Personal relationships;
- Institutional affiliations;
- Collaborative relationships;
- Financial interests;
- Competitive academic relationships.
Individuals with conflicts of interest must recuse themselves from the review process.
Authors must disclose all relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest in their manuscript.
- Human Participants and Research Ethics
Research Involving Human Participants
Research involving human participants must comply with internationally recognized ethical standards, including the Declaration of Helsinki and applicable national regulations.
Authors must explicitly state:
- Whether ethical approval was obtained;
- The name of the approving ethics committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB);
- Approval number/reference code where applicable.
Example statement:
"This study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of [Institution Name] (Approval No. XXXX)."
Informed Consent
Authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained from participants prior to data collection.
For surveys, interviews, focus groups, experiments, case studies, and field research involving individuals, authors should include a statement such as:
"Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study."
Privacy and Confidentiality
Researchers must protect participant privacy and confidentiality.
Personally identifiable information must not be published unless:
- Explicit written consent has been obtained; and
- Publication is necessary for scholarly purposes.
Vulnerable Populations
Additional safeguards must be implemented when research involves:
- Children;
- Students under legal age;
- Persons with disabilities;
- Indigenous communities;
- Other vulnerable populations.
Exemption from Ethical Review
If ethical approval was not required, authors must provide a justification according to institutional or national regulations.
Research Misconduct
IJSAM reserves the right to reject or retract manuscripts where ethical approval, participant consent, or research integrity requirements have not been adequately met.
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Generative Tools
Authors must disclose any use of generative artificial intelligence tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot) in manuscript preparation.
AI tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot take responsibility for the content.
Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all submitted work.
- Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned written request to the Editor-in-Chief.
Appeals will be reviewed independently and may involve consultation with editorial board members or additional reviewers.
The Editor-in-Chief's decision following appeal is final.
- Publication Ethics
IJSAM follows the ethical standards and recommendations of:
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
- Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;
- International standards for research integrity.
The journal will investigate allegations of:
- Plagiarism;
- Data fabrication or falsification;
- Authorship disputes;
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- Ethical violations involving human participants.
Appropriate actions may include correction, expression of concern, manuscript rejection, or article retraction.
- Review Timeline
The typical peer review process may take approximately 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, revision requirements, and editorial assessment.
Authors will be informed of significant delays whenever possible.
- Final Decision
The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on:
- Reviewer recommendations;
- Scientific quality;
- Ethical compliance;
- Journal priorities and scope.
Acceptance for review does not guarantee publication. Only manuscripts that successfully satisfy scientific, ethical, and editorial standards will be published.
References
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2017). Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (Version 2). COPE. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2024). Core Practices. COPE. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2024). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME. Available at: https://publicationethics.org
World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(20), 2191–2194.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). (2023). International Ethical Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans. Geneva: CIOMS.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2025). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Available at: https://www.icmje.org
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule). Washington, DC.
European Commission. (2021). European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Revised Edition. Brussels: ALLEA.
Taylor & Francis. (2025). Peer Review Policies and Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers. Taylor & Francis Author Services.
Elsevier. (2025). Publishing Ethics and Peer Review. Elsevier Researcher Academy.
Springer Nature. (2025). Editorial Policies and Research Integrity Guidelines. Springer Nature.
