Peer Review Process

Journal of Business Application (JBA)

Published by Universitas Dr. Djar Wattiheluw, Indonesia

⚡ Peer Review Summary: Journal of Business Application (JBA) employs a double-blind peer review process where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. All submissions are reviewed based on scholarly merit, originality, validity, and relevance to the journal's scope. The journal follows COPE guidelines for ethical conduct throughout the review process. Average time to first decision: 30-60 days.

A. PEER REVIEW POLICY

Journal of Business Application (JBA) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of quality through a rigorous peer review process. All manuscripts submitted to JBA are subject to double-blind peer review, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to ensure objectivity and fairness.

The peer review process is designed to evaluate the scholarly merit of submissions, including:

  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Contribution to the field of business, management, and economics
  • Methodological rigor and validity
  • Clarity and coherence of presentation
  • Ethical compliance and adherence to standards
  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope

Commitment to Quality: JBA follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for peer review and takes all necessary measures to ensure the integrity and transparency of the review process.

B. TYPE OF PEER REVIEW

✓

Double-Blind Peer Review

JBA employs a double-blind peer review system, meaning that:

  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors - All identifying information (names, affiliations, acknowledgments) is removed from the manuscript before review
  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers - Reviewers remain anonymous throughout and after the review process
  • Objectivity is maximized - This system minimizes bias based on author reputation, gender, nationality, or institutional affiliation

Why Double-Blind? Double-blind peer review is considered the gold standard in academic publishing as it ensures that manuscripts are judged solely on their intellectual and scholarly merit, free from any potential bias toward the authors.

C. PEER REVIEW STAGES

 
1

Stage 1: Initial Submission & Editorial Check

Timeline: 1-7 days

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial check to ensure:

  • The manuscript falls within the journal's scope (Econometrics, Business Economics, Finance, etc.)
  • All submission requirements are met (format, length, structure)
  • Plagiarism check using detection software (similarity score < 20%)
  • Basic ethical compliance (informed consent, ethical approval if applicable)

Manuscripts that fail this stage are returned to authors for revision or rejected without external review.

2

Stage 2: Editor Assignment

Timeline: 1-3 days

The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a Section Editor with relevant expertise who will manage the review process.

3

Stage 3: Reviewer Invitation & Assignment

Timeline: 1-2 weeks

The Section Editor invites at least two qualified reviewers with expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Expertise and publication record in the field
  • No conflicts of interest with authors or institutions
  • Willingness to provide timely, constructive reviews
4

Stage 4: Review Conduct

Timeline: 2-4 weeks

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using a structured review form that addresses:

  • Originality and significance of the research
  • Methodological appropriateness and rigor
  • Clarity of presentation and argumentation
  • Strength of conclusions and implications
  • Specific recommendations for improvement
5

Stage 5: Editorial Decision

Timeline: 1-2 weeks

Based on reviewer reports, the Section Editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision:

  • Accept - Manuscript accepted as is or with minor revisions
  • Minor Revisions - Manuscript requires small changes before acceptance
  • Major Revisions - Manuscript requires substantial changes and will undergo re-review
  • Reject & Resubmit - Manuscript has potential but requires major restructuring
  • Reject - Manuscript does not meet journal standards or falls outside scope
6

Stage 6: Author Notification & Revision

Timeline: Variable based on revision requirements

Authors receive the decision along with reviewer comments. If revisions are required, authors typically have 2-4 weeks to submit a revised manuscript with a detailed response to reviewer comments.

First Decision

30-60 days

Average time to first decision

Review Time

2-4 weeks

Duration of peer review

Publication

2-4 weeks

After acceptance to publication

D. REVIEWER SELECTION CRITERIA

Expertise

Reviewers are selected based on their demonstrated expertise in the manuscript's subject area, evidenced by relevant publications and academic qualifications in business, economics, finance, or management.

No Conflicts of Interest

Potential reviewers are screened for conflicts of interest, including recent collaborations, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships with authors.

Diversity

The journal strives for diversity in reviewer selection, including geographical, institutional, and demographic diversity to ensure varied perspectives.

Review Quality

Reviewers are selected based on their history of providing timely, constructive, and high-quality reviews for the journal or other publications.

Reviewer Database: JBA maintains an international database of qualified reviewers. The journal welcomes expressions of interest from qualified researchers who wish to serve as reviewers.

E. REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and not discuss them with anyone without the editor's permission.

2. Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, with clear, constructive feedback supported by evidence. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

3. Timeliness

Reviewers who cannot meet deadlines should decline the invitation or notify the editor immediately to arrange alternatives.

4. Disclosure

Reviewers should identify any potential conflicts of interest and decline to review if necessary. They should also alert editors to ethical concerns or substantial similarity with other works.

5. Constructive Feedback

Reviews should provide specific, actionable recommendations for improvement, helping authors enhance their work regardless of the final decision.

F. EDITORIAL DECISIONS

Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief based on:

  • Reviewer recommendations - At least two independent reviews are considered
  • Editorial judgment - Section Editor's assessment and recommendation
  • Journal scope and standards - Alignment with journal's mission and quality benchmarks
  • Ethical considerations - Compliance with publication ethics and research standards
Accept
Minor Revisions
Major Revisions
Reject & Resubmit
Reject

Appeals: Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed written explanation to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals will be reviewed following COPE guidelines.

G. ETHICAL OVERSIGHT OF PEER REVIEW

The peer review process at JBA is subject to ongoing monitoring and ethical oversight to ensure:

  • Integrity - No manipulation of the peer review process
  • Fairness - Consistent application of standards across all submissions
  • Confidentiality - Protection of author and reviewer identities
  • Quality - Reviewers provide substantive, constructive feedback
  • Timeliness - Efficient processing of manuscripts

Suspected violations of peer review ethics (e.g., reviewer collusion, fake reviews, identity manipulation) are investigated thoroughly following COPE guidelines. Appropriate actions include rejection, retraction, and banning of individuals from future participation.

H. BECOME A REVIEWER

Join our reviewer panel!

JBA welcomes qualified researchers and practitioners to join our reviewer database. Benefits of reviewing include:

  • Contributing to the advancement of your field
  • Staying current with new research
  • Recognition as a reviewer (reviewer recognition programs)
  • Professional development through exposure to diverse research

To register your interest, please contact the editorial office with your CV and areas of expertise.

I. CONTACT INFORMATION

Editorial Office
Journal of Business Application (JBA)
Universitas Dr. Djar Wattiheluw
Indonesia

Email: admin@unidjar.id
Website: https://unidjar.id/index.php/jba

Editor in Chief: Eduard Yohannis Tamaela

For questions about the peer review process or the status of your submission, please contact the editorial office.

This peer review process statement is based on COPE guidelines and aligns with the requirements for Scopus indexing. Last updated: March 2026.