1. Peer Review System

Indonesia Discourse applies a rigorous, independent, and impartial peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, validity, and scholarly contribution of all manuscripts considered for publication. The peer review process is designed to maintain high academic standards, promote research integrity, and ensure that published articles make meaningful contributions to scholarly discussions concerning Indonesia and its regional and global contexts.

The journal employs a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Authors are required to submit manuscripts prepared for anonymous review, removing names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, and other identifying information from the main manuscript where applicable. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and avoid attempts to identify the authors.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is assessed by the editorial team to determine its suitability for the journal's focus and scope, compliance with submission guidelines, originality, academic relevance, methodological appropriateness, and adherence to publication ethics. The editorial team may conduct plagiarism screening and other preliminary integrity checks where appropriate.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements, fall outside its scope, demonstrate insufficient scholarly contribution, or raise significant ethical concerns may be rejected at the initial screening stage without external review. Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are forwarded to independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

3. External Peer Review

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial assessment is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, subject knowledge, and ability to provide objective and constructive evaluations. Reviewers should not have relationships or interests that could compromise their impartiality.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript's originality, significance, theoretical foundation, engagement with relevant literature, research design, methodological rigor, quality of analysis, validity of findings, clarity of presentation, and overall contribution to the field. Reviewers may also identify ethical concerns, unsupported claims, methodological limitations, and opportunities for improvement.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive comments that assist the editor in making an informed decision and help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

4. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's independent assessment, the journal may issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any necessary editorial or production requirements.

• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions to address reviewers' comments or improve clarity, presentation, or specific aspects of the analysis.

• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions to address significant concerns regarding its theoretical framing, methodology, analysis, interpretation, or scholarly contribution. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication because it does not meet the journal's academic standards, falls outside its scope, or has fundamental limitations that cannot adequately be addressed through revision.

Editorial decisions are made by the editor or an authorized member of the editorial team. Decisions are based on scholarly merit, the relevance of the manuscript to the journal, the quality of the research, the reviewers' assessments, and compliance with publication ethics. Reviewers provide recommendations but do not make the final publication decision. The editor retains full responsibility for the final decision.

5. Revision and Resubmission

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Where a suggestion has not been adopted, authors should provide a clear and academically justified explanation. Revised manuscripts should be submitted within the deadline specified by the editorial office, unless an extension has been approved.

The editor may assess revised manuscripts directly or return them to the reviewers, depending on the extent of the revisions and the nature of the issues raised. A revision invitation does not guarantee acceptance. Manuscripts that fail to address essential concerns adequately may be subject to further revision or rejection.

6. Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal research, professional advantage, or any purpose unrelated to the review process without prior authorization from the journal and the relevant rights holders.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. Conflicts may include financial interests, personal relationships, professional competition, institutional affiliations, or collaborative relationships with the authors. Reviewers who cannot provide an impartial assessment should decline the invitation or notify the editor promptly.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review unless explicitly authorized by the editor. They should report suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, or other potential breaches of publication ethics to the editor in a confidential and evidence-based manner.

7. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Indonesia Discourse is committed to editorial independence and impartial decision-making. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by commercial interests, institutional pressure, personal relationships, political considerations, or other factors unrelated to the academic merit and ethical acceptability of a submission.

Editors must declare and appropriately manage any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest involving a submitted manuscript. An editor who has a conflict of interest must not oversee the review process or make decisions on the manuscript. In such cases, responsibility must be transferred to an independent editor or another authorized member of the editorial team.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and unpublished research throughout the review process. Manuscript content must not be uploaded to or shared with external artificial intelligence tools or services when doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or research integrity, or violate applicable institutional or journal requirements.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, originality, fairness, and scholarly quality of their assessments. Any permitted use of artificial intelligence must comply with the journal's applicable policies and must not replace the reviewer's independent academic judgment. The journal may update this policy in response to developments in publication ethics and responsible AI practices.

9. Review Timeline

The journal seeks to conduct the peer review process in a timely and efficient manner while maintaining the quality and integrity of editorial evaluation. The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, and the time required for authors to respond to reviewers' comments. Authors will be informed of significant developments and editorial decisions through the journal's submission system or official editorial correspondence.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant procedural error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript, or a demonstrable breach of editorial policy may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals must provide specific evidence and a clear explanation of the grounds for reconsideration. Disagreement with a decision alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Appeals and complaints are considered by the editor-in-chief or an appropriate independent editorial representative. Where necessary, the journal may seek additional expert advice. All complaints are handled fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with the journal's editorial and publication ethics policies.

11. Commitment to Research Integrity

Indonesia Discourse is committed to maintaining transparent, fair, and ethical peer review practices. All participants in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, and editors, are expected to uphold the principles of academic integrity, professional respect, confidentiality, and responsible scholarship. Suspected breaches of publication ethics will be assessed and handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy and applicable recognized standards of scholarly publishing.