The peer review process for scholarly work in Perspektif: Kajian Kepemerintahan & Kesejahteraan Sosial follows the general academic standard, but with a specific focus on the unique theoretical, methodological, and ethical considerations inherent in these fields. The aim is to ensure that published research is original, rigorous, ethical, and relevant to policy and practice.

Key Stages of the Peer Review Process

The standard process typically includes the following stages:

1. Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment

   • The author submits the manuscript to the target journal.

   • The Editor-in-Chief (or a designated Associate Editor) conducts a preliminary check to ensure the paper meets the journal's scope, ethical standards, and basic formatting requirements. Submissions that are significantly out of scope or poorly prepared are rejected at this "Desk Reject" stage.

2. External Peer Review (Refereeing)

   • The Editor selects 2–3 experts (referees) in the specific subfield (e.g., public policy analysis, social work ethics, community development) to evaluate the manuscript.

   • Reviewers critically assess the manuscript based on established criteria (see section below).

   • The review process is typically double-blind (both authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed) to ensure impartiality.

   • Reviewers provide a detailed report and a recommendation (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject).

3. Editorial Decision and Communication

   • The Editor weighs the reviewers' comments and makes a final decision.

   • The decision is communicated to the author, along with the anonymized reviewers' reports.

4. Revision and Resubmission

   • If revisions are requested, the author prepares a revised manuscript and a Point-by-Point Response Letter detailing how every comment from the reviewers and editor was addressed.

   • For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of review.

5. Final Acceptance and Publication

   • Once the Editor is satisfied that all issues have been adequately addressed, the manuscript is formally accepted and proceeds to the production stage for eventual publication.

Perspective-Specific Review Criteria

Reviewers in Governance and Social Welfare Studies pay particular attention to the following areas:

• Theoretical/Conceptual Framing: Is the work clearly grounded in relevant governance theories (e.g., new public management, collaborative governance) or social welfare frameworks (e.g., social justice, capabilities approach)? Is the conceptual contribution well-articulated?

• Methodological Rigor and Appropriateness:

  • Qualitative Studies: Evaluation of trustworthiness, clarity of case selection, data collection, and analysis techniques (e.g., coding, thematic analysis).

  • Quantitative Studies: Assessment of the use of appropriate statistical methods, validity of measures, and robustness of findings, particularly with complex social data.

  • Policy Analysis: Scrutiny of the criteria used for policy evaluation (e.g., efficiency, equity, effectiveness).

• Ethical Considerations and Reflexivity: This is crucial in social welfare research. Reviewers check for adequate attention to informed consent, the protection of vulnerable populations, and the author's reflexivity regarding their positionality and potential biases when working with sensitive topics.

• Relevance to Policy and Practice: Does the research provide clear and actionable implications for public policy, governance mechanisms, social work practice, or non-profit sector management? Does it address a significant social problem?

• Contextual Depth: Research in these fields is often highly context-dependent. Reviewers assess whether the study adequately accounts for the political, administrative, and socio-cultural context of the setting under investigation.

Challenges in the Field

The interdisciplinary nature of Governance and Social Welfare can present challenges, as manuscripts often bridge multiple fields (e.g., political science, sociology, economics). Reviewers must be sensitive to the diverse methodological and epistemological approaches this complexity entails. Furthermore, ensuring that research meets both academic standards for rigor and practical relevance for stakeholders (policymakers, practitioners, and service users) is a recurring consideration.