Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

IKAT: The Indonesian Journal of Southeast Asian Studies strives to provide new, rigorous and comprehensive understandings of Southeast Asia through inter-disciplinary perspectives. Its scope includes, but is not limited to, economic welfare, institutional knowledge production, history, political transformation, and the social development of information and communication technology in the region. Contributors may focus on an in-depth individual country analysis or a multi-country comparative case study. In line with CESASS's mission statement, contributors are encouraged to submit empirical, methodological, theoretical, or conceptual articles about Southeast Asia through the lense of social science.

 

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

IKAT: The Indonesian Journal of Southeast Asian Studies uses double-blind review. This means that throughout the review process both reviewers' and authors' identities are concealed from each other.

The peer review process at IKAT includes the following steps:

  1. Submission of Paper: The Author submits the article to the Journal via an online open journal system (OJS). 
  2. Editorial Office Assessment: The Journal checks the article’s composition and arrangement against the Journal's 'Author Guidelines' to ensure it includes the required sections and stylizations. 
  3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC): The EIC checks the article is appropriate for the Journal, as well if it is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the article may be rejected without further review. 
  4. Invitation to Reviewers: The handling Editor sends invitations to individuals they believe to be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances are obtained. 
  5. Review is Conducted: The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further revision. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the Journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered. 
  6. Journal Evaluates the Reviews: The handling Editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer, for further opinion, before making a decision.
  7. The Decision is Communicated: The Editor sends a decision email to the Author including any relevant reviewer comments. 
  8. Next Steps: If accepted, the article is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the Author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling Editor. 
  9. Formatting and Publication: Once the article is accepted, it is sent to production for proofreading and formatting. Once these two final processes are finished, the article will be ready to publish in the latest issue of IKAT.

 

Publication Frequency

Biannually in January and July.

 

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or their institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open accsess.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the PKP PN 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...

 

Publication Ethics

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: 
    Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
  2. Data Access and Retention: 
    Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases) if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  3. Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
  4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: 
    An author should not, in general, publish articles describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same article to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
  5. Acknowledgement of Sources: 
    Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
  6. Authorship of the Paper: 
    Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
  7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
    All authors should disclose in their article any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their article. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  8. Fundamental errors in published works: 
    When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: 
    If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the article.

Duties of Editors

  1. Fair Play: 
    An editor at any time must evaluate articles for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  2. Confidentiality: 
    The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
    Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted article must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
  4. Publication Decisions
    The editoral board of the journal are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 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.
  5. Review of Articles: 
    Editor must ensure that each article 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. Editors 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.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
    Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
  2. Promptness: 
    Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a article or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
  3. Standards of Objectivity: 
    Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Confidentiality: 
    Any articles received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  5. 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 articles 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.
  6. Acknowledgement of Sources: 
    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. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the article under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

 

Plagiarism Screening

Articles submitted to IKAT are screened for plagiarism using a plagiarism checker. In accordance with our publication ethics, articles found to have an unacceptable level of similarity to a previously published article are immediately rejected.

 

Review Guidelines

All papers submitted to IKAT: The Indonesian Journal of Southeast Asian Studies undergo a rigorous peer review to ensure that they not only fit into the journal's scope but are of sufficient academic quality and novelty to appeal to our readers. As a reviewer, you are required to uphold this standard.

These guidelines will help you understand your responsibilities as a reviewer, as well as your ethical obligations to both the journal and the authors. You will also be introduced to what you should be looking for in a manuscript so that your review will be consistent with others requested by the journal. This is particularly important as all articles submitted to Humaniora should be evaluated on a level playing field.

Your responsibilities as a reviewer
As a reviewer, you are responsible for reading the manuscript and evaluating its suitability for publication in IKAT. You are expected to provide constructive, impartial, unambiguous, and honest feedback to the authors, with the purpose of encouraging them to improve their manuscript to the point that it can be published in IKAT.

Your role in IKAT’s commitment to author development
We believe that publication is not an endpoint, but rather—through its function as a facilitator of scientific debate—one step of many in an author’s evolution. Any author, but especially one in the early stages of their career, should come out of the review process has improved as a writer and researcher. For this reason, IKAT urges reviewers to not only do their part in helping a manuscript reach its potential but to draw from their wealth of experience to help up-and-coming authors find their true voice. By providing thoughtful, constructive criticism that authors can use to shape their subsequent writing, you aid us in paying the knowledge forward.

A further contribution you make is in establishing a standard of good reviewing practices, showing through example how a peer review is to be conducted.

Conversely, we must also emphasize that any form of criticism aimed at demoralizing an author is unacceptable, regardless of a manuscript’s academic merit (or lack thereof). Reviewer comments that in any way intimidate, denigrate, or discourage an author from pursuing the publication of their present or any future article are not tolerated, and any reviewer who exhibits this detrimental behavior will be permanently barred from contributing further to IKAT.

Reviewer Ethics
IKAT relies on the impartiality and discretion of its reviewers, and as one, you have entrusted with confidential material meant solely for critical evaluation. Without exception, you must treat all documents and correspondence related to the review with care. You should:

  • Never use any of the information related to the review for the advancement of your own research or career, or to discredit another party.
  • Never discuss any aspect of the manuscript with a third party.
  • Ensure that all information and details related to the review and the review process remain confidential before, during, and after publication.
  • Maintain the integrity of the double-blind peer review process. Do not under any circumstances contact any of the authors to discuss their manuscript.
  • Be fair, honest, and objective in your evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Declare a conflict of interest, and recuse yourself immediately if you believe your impartiality has been compromised.

The Review Process
Things to consider before agreeing to review a manuscript
Before you agree to review a manuscript, you should be certain that you have the necessary expertise and time to provide a critical evaluation of the article. Ask yourself whether:

  • The article matches your expertise. Log into your IKAT account and read the manuscript's abstract to determine whether your field of expertise matches that of the manuscript.
  • You are able to both complete the review on time and dedicate the appropriate amount of time to conducting a thorough review. A review should be completed within three weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this timeframe, please let the editor know. If possible, please also suggest an alternate reviewer. If you agree to review a manuscript, but later on find yourself unable to complete it on time, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
  • You have any conflict of interest. Determine if there is any conflict of interest that may affect your impartiality. If there is, you should contact the editor and immediately recuse yourself. If you were unable to detect any conflict before agreeing to review the manuscript, but find one during the review, simply contact the editor and explain why you cannot continue.

Conducting the Review (IKAT’s review procedure)
IKAT uses an online submission and peer review system. When a reviewer is requested to review a paper submitted to IKAT, they will have a journal account created for them, through which they will be able to read the abstract and decide on whether to agree to review it.

If you have been requested to review a paper, simply log into your reviewer account, read the provided abstract, and indicate whether you agree to review it. If you decline to review the manuscript, please include the reason why, and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer from a similar field.

To ensure the integrity of the peer-review process, all further correspondence will be through this system, with the reviewer being given access to the full manuscript and provided with a review page to fill out and submit. If you wish, you can also provide comments directly on the manuscript file, but be sure that all comments are made anonymously and focus on the content of the article, not its layout or formatting.

Basic criteria
Your review should look at both the overall quality of the manuscript and the accuracy and precision of its details, with the former informed by the latter. Assess the following aspects:

  • Scope. Is the manuscript within IKAT’s scope? How interesting and relevant will the article be to our readers?
  • Adherence to IKAT’s author guidelines. Does the manuscript adhere to the journal's guidelines?
  • The novelty of the research. If this is a research article, is it sufficiently novel and interesting? Does it add new knowledge? How original is the research?
  • Appropriateness of the title. Does the title accurately represent the content?
  • Quality of the content. Does the article adhere to IKAT’s standards? Is the research question an important one? Does the manuscript help to expand or further current research in its respective field?
  • Clarity of the content. How good is the English? Will IKAT’s readers be able to understand the arguments made by the author(s) without confusion? Is there a logical progression and evident organization in the article? 
  • Methodology. If this is a research article, is its description of the methodology informative, clear, and concise? Is the methodology of the research precise and properly conducted? How appropriate is the approach or experimental design?
  • The significance of the findings. What are the implications of the findings? How significantly will this manuscript contribute to the Southeast Asian social studies?
  • Appropriateness of tables, figures, boxes, and/or supplementary material. Is every figure, table, or box necessary and correctly described? Is the supplementary material appropriate for the content?
  • Completeness of the data. If this is a research article, how complete are the data?
  • The relevance of the discussion. Is the discussion relevant to the results and rest of the content? Have the authors appropriately discussed their results in the context of previous work?
  • Appropriateness of citations/references. Are all citations accounted for? Is there an appropriate amount of citations for the content (neither too few nor too many)?
  • Adherence to correct scientific nomenclature. Are technical terms used correctly?
Ethical considerations
In addition to the above criteria, you should also pay attention to whether the manuscript contains instances of plagiarism, improper referencing, re-publication, fraud, or other forms of deception. Things to look for:
  • Plagiarism. Observe whether a portion of the manuscript has been copied from another work without giving appropriate credit. For example, a text has been copied verbatim without a clear indication that it is a quote, the text has been copied but not cited—suggesting that these are the own words or ideas of the author(s)—or some portion of the text has been copied without the permission of the original author. If you find that a significant part of the manuscript has been plagiarized, please contact the section editor as soon as possible so we can take the appropriate actions.
  • Missing, incorrect, or incomplete references. All text, figures, tables, data, ideas, or concepts that have been previously published should be cited. It is considered plagiarism for an author to present something as their own even though it is not, regardless of their intent.
  • Re-publication. IKAT does not publish work that has already been published elsewhere. Please notify the section editor if you find an instance of a manuscript having been published previously (either partially or fully).
  • Fraud. It is often the case that an author will misread a source and unintentionally make an inaccurate claim. Nevertheless, any part of the manuscript that is found to be untrue should be highlighted as such. And, more crucially, any form of data manipulation or tampering should be brought to the section editor's attention immediately.

Publication ethics is not limited to these four items. If you believe the author(s) have attempted to mislead readers, infringed upon a copyright or patent, or might jeopardize the integrity of the journal in any other way, please contact the section editor.

Submitting the review
The IKAT review form
Once you have gathered enough information to make a decision on the manuscript, log into your IKAT account to complete the review. At the minimum, you will be required to grade the manuscript based on the aforementioned criteria, as well as to summarize your major findings and give your overall impression of the article. Although it is only optional, we highly encourage you to also take the opportunity to comment on the manuscript in more detail, and provide specific suggestions that might improve any aspect of it.

If you have made specific comments in the manuscript file, remember to anonymize them to prevent the authors from being able to identify you.

Making good comments
It's important to ensure that all comments are constructive and intended to better the quality of the manuscript (or otherwise help the authors understand where they went wrong). Please reconsider making comments that fall out of this purview.
Follow good commenting practices. For example:

  • Do not comment on the acceptability of the manuscript, and avoid suggesting revisions as conditions for acceptance.
  • Provide detailed, unambiguous comments.
  • Be respectful and positive. Your goal should be to help the author(s) improve their article, by providing constructive criticism and helpful suggestions. Consider how you would like your own manuscript to be reviewed. (Also note IKAT’s aforementioned policy on malicious commenting.)
  • Highlight areas that need clarification or should be elaborated further by the authors.
  • Make suggestions on how the authors can improve problematic passages. How might they improve the clarity of a given section?
  • You are not required to edit the style or grammar of the manuscript, but any improvement to the clarity of the content is greatly appreciated.
  • Highlight consistent instances of misspelled technical terms.
  • Avoid making dogmatic statements. You should be able to back up your comments with proof or precedence in previous literature.
  • Take care not to dismiss the manuscript, whether in its novelty, methodology, or findings.

Your recommendation
Your final task as a reviewer will be to recommend that the manuscript is either; a) accepted as is, b) accepted with minor revisions, c) accepted with major revisions, or d) rejected. If the manuscript is rejected, you should explain your reasons why.
Regardless of what you recommend, your decision should be supported by the facts of the evaluation and backed with constructive criticism. As one of at least two reviewers, your recommendation may differ from that of your colleagues. Therefore, ensuring that you conduct a good critical review is important, as it enables IKAT’s editorial board to make an informed final decision on the manuscript. Also note that the final decision on the manuscript is made by the editorial board, taking into account ever reviewer’s recommendations, and your recommendation might not be reflected in this decision.