Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

JEKP aims to be a leading journal as source of information in economics and public policy. We publish original research papers, review articles, and case studies focused on economics and public policy issued as well as related topics. All papers are peer-reviewed by at least two expert. JEKP is managed to be issued twice a year. The Scope of JEKP is:

1. Economics: including macroeconomics, microeconomics, international trade, finance, human resource, and.

2. Public policy: including fiscal policy, monetary policy, public good, private good, governance issues, energy policy issue, and any other related issues.

The study within all scope of JEKP will be prefered ini applied studies.

 

Section Policies

Front Pages

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Articles

Editors
  • Eka Budiyanti, S.Si., M.S.E.
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Back Pages

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The JEKP employs a double-blind manuscript review process. With a double‐blind review approach, the identity of the both the author(s) and reviewer(s) are unknown to both parties.

The JEKP conducts its editorial work using the Online Journal System (OJS). The OJS is system that systematically handles JEKP’s double-blind review process. Once a manuscript is submitted through the OJS, it is automatically logged in and checked (by the journal manager) to ensure that the submission is complete and has been prepared according to the JEKP submission instructions. At this time a receipt of manuscript acknowledgement is sent to the corresponding author confirming that his/her manuscript has been received and is been considered for possible publication in JEKP.

All manuscripts submitted for publication in the JEKP are first evaluated by the Managing Editor, either individually or in consultation with the Editorial Board member(s), to assess its suitability for the journal in line with the journal’s aims, scope, and writing guidelines. This is an important step to ensure that the content is not only falls within the aims and scope of the journal in terms of quality and/or impact on policy but also writing guidelines-requirement. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s expected standards are rejected with an explanation of reasons behind a desk-reject decision. Those manuscript’s meeting the journal’s expected standards are then checked for ‘similarity’ (similarity index (SI)) using the PlagSan software. The JEKP allows a SI of 20%. Those papers having a SI > 20% are returned to the authors for further re-writing to bring the index to 20% or less.

These manuscripts when resubmitted are then assigned to at least two reviewers. The reviewers are experienced researchers who have published in high impact factor journals, and are part of the JEKP reviewer database. This reviewer selection is the most critical aspect of peer review. Managing Editor will (a) contact potential reviewers and obtain their agreement to review before they are sent a manuscript, (b) ensure reviewers are sent manuscripts that are appropriate to their areas of interest and expertise, (c) advise authors on who it is not permissible for them to suggest as potential reviewers for their manuscripts, and (d) ask authors to provide reasons for any requests for exclusion of particular reviewers for their manuscripts. On the other hand, Managing Editor will not (a) send manuscripts to more reviewers than are needed with the intention of using only the first reviews returned, (b) put pressure on any reviewer who feels uncomfortable about reviewing a manuscript to do so, and (c) send manuscripts to reviewers who regularly fail to return reviews, or who do so only after unacceptably long times, or who provide superficial or inadequate reviews. Reviewers are given 14 working days to provide a detailed report on the manuscript with their recommended decision, which can either be ’accept‘, ’minor revision‘, ’major revision‘, or ’reject‘. Where reviewer reports are in conflict the Managing Editor reads the report(s) and the manuscript, and conveys the final decision to the corresponding author.

When a ‘revise’ decision is made, for ‘minor revisions’ (‘major revisions’) authors are provided between 14-21 working days (or 1-2 month(s)) to undertake revisions. When revised manuscripts are submitted, in the case of minor revisions, the Managing Editor reads the manuscript and the rejoinder and makes a final decision. In the case of a major revision, resubmitted manuscripts are again assigned to reviewer(s) and the editorial decision proceeds from there.

In all cases, regardless of the reviewer recommendation, the final decision on whether or not to publish a manuscript rests solely with the Managing Editor who in making the editorial decision keeps in mind the scope/aims of the journal.

 

Publication Frequency

JEKP is a journal published online twice a year in the middle of the year (June) and in the end of the year (December).

 

Open Access Policy

JEKP provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public to support a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Article Processing Charges

Every article submitted to JEKP will not have any 'Article Processing Charges'. This includes submitting, peer-reviewing, editing, publishing, maintaining and archiving, and allows immediate access to the full text versions of the articles.

 

Plagiarism Check

Plagiarism screening will be conducted by JEKP Editorial Board using PlagScan and Google Scholar 

 

Accreditation Certificate

JEKP has been certificated as a Scientific Journal by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) since 07 October 2013 (Accreditation Number: 557/Akred/P2MI-LIPI/09/2013) and regained its position since 03 August 2020 (Accreditation Number: 148/M/KPT/2020).

 

Peer-Reviewer

1. Prof. Dr. Ir. Carunia Mulya Hamid Firdausy, M.A.
Pusat Penelitian Ekonomi, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia
Jl. Jenderal Gatot Subroto 10, Jakarta Pusat, 12710, DKI Jakarta,Indonesia
Scopus | GS |  Worldcat | Garuda | Sinta 

2. Prof (Riset) Dr. I Wayan Rusastra, M.S.
Pusat Studi Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Pertanian, Kementerian Pertanian
Jl. Tentara Pelajar 3B, Ciwaringin, Bogor, 16124, Jawa Barat, Indonesia 
Scopus | GS | Worldcat | Garuda

3. Prof. Dr. Djoni Hartono, S.Si., M.E.
Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Indonesia
Jl. Prof. Dr. Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, Kota Depok, 16424, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
Scopus | GS | Orcid | Garuda | Sinta 

4. Prof (Riset) Dr. Ir. Erwidodo, M.S. 
Pusat Studi Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Pertanian, Kementerian Pertanian
Jl. Tentara Pelajar 3B, Ciwaringin, Bogor, 16124, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
Scopus | GS | Worldcat | Garuda | Sinta 

5. Prof. Mohamad Fazli Sabri, BSc., M.S., PhD.
Faculty of Human Ecology, Universiti Putra Malaysia
Serdang, Selangor, 43400 Malaysia 
Scopus | GS | Orcid 

6. Dr. Ir. Mahjus Ekananda, M.S.E., M.M.
Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Indonesia
Jl. Prof. Dr. Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, Kota Depok, 16424, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
Scopus | GS | Orcid | Garuda | Sinta 

7. Dr. Solikin M. Juhro, M.A. 
BI Institute, Bank Indonesia
Jl. M.H. Thamrin No. 2, Jakarta Pusat, 10350 DKI Jakarta, Indonesia
Scopus | GS | Orcid | Worldcat | Garuda 

8. Dr. Triarko Nurlambang, M.A.
Sekolah Ilmu Lingkungan, Universitas Indonesia 
Jl. Salemba Raya No. 4, Jakarta Pusat, 10430, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia 
Scopus | GS | Garuda | Sinta 

9. Dr. Padang Wicaksono, S.E., M.Econ.
Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Indonesia
Jl. Prof. Dr. Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, Kota Depok, 16424, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
Scopus | GS | Orcid | Garuda | Sinta 

10. Dr. Arniati, S.E., M.Si., Ak. CA., CPA.
Program Studi Akuntasi Manajerial, Politeknik Negeri Batam
Jl. Ahmad Yani, Tlk. Tering, Kec. Batam Kota, Kota Batam 29461, Kepulauan Riau, Indonesia
Scopus | GS | Orcid 

11. Dr. Vid Adrison, S.E., M.A.
Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Indonesia
Jl. Prof. Dr. Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, Kota Depok, 16424, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
Scopus | GS | Orcid | Garuda | Sinta  

12. Prof. (Riset) Dr. Ir. Achmad Suryana, M.S.
Pusat Studi Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Pertanian, Kementerian Pertanian 
Jl. Tentara Pelajar 3B, Ciwaringin, Bogor, 16124, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
GS | Worldcat | Garuda | Sinta 

13. Dr. A. K. M. Nazrul Islam
Dhaka School of Economics (DScE), University of Dhaka
Eskaton Garden Rd, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
GS 

14. Dr. Archna Negi
Centre for International Politics, Organization and Disarmament 
School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 
GS 

15. Prof. Dr. Ahmed Uludag
Faculty of Agriculture, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University
Merkez/Çanakkale, Turkey 
GS 

16. Annemarie Bastrup Birk
European Environment Agency (EEA), Uni Eropa
Kongens Nytorv 6, 1050 Copenhagen K., Denmark
GS 

17. Dr. Siwage Dharma Negara
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore City
30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Singapore 119614
Scopus 

18. Dr. Riant Nugroho Dwidjowijoto, M.Si.
Fakultas Ilmu Administrasi, Universitas Indonesia
Jl. Prof. Dr. Selo Sumardjan, Kota Depok, 16424, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
GS | Worldcat | Garuda

19. Dr. Rulyusa Pratikto, S.AB., M.S.E.
Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Universitas Parahyangan
Jl. Ciumbuleuit No. 94, Kota Bandung, 40141, Jawa Barat, Indonesia 
Scopus | GS | Garuda | Sinta   

20. Dr. Windhiarso Ponco Adi Putranto, S.Si., M.Eng.
Badan Pusat Statistik
Jl. Dr. Sutomo No. 6-8, Jakarta Pusat, 10710, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia
Scopus | GS

21. Dr. Vishnu Juwono, S.E., MIA.
Fakultas Ilmu Administrasi, Universitas Indonesia
Jl. Prof. Dr. Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, Kota Depok, 16424, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
Scopus | GS | Orcid | Garuda | Sinta 

 

 

 

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

JEKP is a journal aims to be a leading peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers, review articles and case studies focused on economics and public policy as well as related topics that has neither been published elsewhere in any language, nor is it under review for publication anywhere. This following statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

 

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
  5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

 

Duties of Editor

  1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
  3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
  4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

 

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
  4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.  Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
  5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

 

Detailed Statistics

Detailed Statistics

 

Indexing

Indexing