Reviewer Guidelines

These guidelines provide reviewers with clear expectations for evaluating manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Ekonosia. The journal follows a double-blind peer review system.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process aims to:

  • Ensure the scientific quality, relevance, and originality of manuscripts in the fields of Economics and Islamic Economics

  • Provide constructive feedback to authors

  • Support editorial decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection

2. Scope Consideration

Reviewers must first evaluate whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, which includes:

Economics:

Macroeconomics, microeconomics, development economics, regional economics, monetary economics, public economics, international economics, environmental & resource economics, labor economics, agricultural economics (economic aspects), econometrics, and economic policy analysis.

Islamic Economics:

Islamic macro & microeconomics, Islamic public finance, Islamic economic development, consumer behavior in Islamic systems, maqasid-based policy analysis, and Islamic econometrics.

Manuscripts in management, business, marketing, HR, or operational Islamic banking should be rejected unless their discussion is explicitly based on economic theory or models.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Provide an objective, fair, and professional evaluation

  2. Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content

  3. Declare any conflict of interest immediately

  4. Complete the review within the assigned time frame (typically 2–3 weeks)

  5. Offer constructive comments, not personal criticism

  6. Avoid using or sharing any unpublished material from the manuscript

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following components:

4.1. Originality and Contribution

  • Does the paper contribute new knowledge to economics or Islamic economics?

  • Is the research question relevant, significant, and well-motivated?

  • Is there a clear theoretical or empirical contribution?

4.2. Literature Review Quality

  • Does the manuscript demonstrate understanding of key theories and prior studies?

  • Is the review up-to-date, especially from the last 10 years?

  • Are sources reputable (preferably Scopus/WoS indexed journals)?

4.3. Theoretical Foundation

  • Are the economic theories used appropriate and correctly applied?

  • Is the conceptual model or framework clearly presented?

4.4. Methodology and Data

  • Is the research design suitable for the research question?

  • Are the data sources valid, reliable, and appropriate (e.g., BPS, BI, OJK, IMF, World Bank)?

  • Are econometric or analytical techniques used correctly?

  • Are variables defined clearly?

4.5. Results and Discussion

  • Are the results presented clearly and accurately?

  • Is the analysis consistent with economic principles?

  • Are findings compared with previous research?

  • Are policy implications relevant and logically derived?

4.6. Conclusion

  • Does the conclusion summarize key findings effectively?

  • Does it reflect the evidence presented?

  • Are limitations and recommendations included?

4.7. Writing Quality

  • Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured?

  • Are tables and figures appropriate and properly labeled?

  • Is the English or Indonesian grammar acceptable?

5. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers must report if they detect:

  • Plagiarism

  • Data fabrication or manipulation

  • Redundant publication / self-plagiarism

  • Ethical issues related to data collection

If concerns arise, the reviewer should notify the editorial board immediately.

6. Reviewer Decision Options

Reviewers must choose one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept

  2. Minor Revision

  3. Major Revision

  4. Reject

Each decision must be supported with clear justification.

7. Review Report Structure

A reviewer’s report should include:

A. Summary of the Manuscript

A brief overview (2–4 sentences) showing the reviewer understands the paper’s purpose.

B. Major Comments

  • Issues affecting validity, methodology, theory, or contribution

  • Suggestions for improvement

C. Minor Comments

  • Language issues

  • Typographical errors

  • Clarifications needed

D. Recommendation

Choose one decision category with reasoning.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscript files, data, and review reports must be treated as confidential and must not be shared or discussed with others.

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare if they:

  • Have collaborated with the authors

  • Are affiliated with the same institution

  • Have financial or personal interest in the study

  • Cannot be impartial

If any conflict exists, the reviewer must decline the invitation.