Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Sustainable Finance & Development (SUFID) undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific integrity, and relevance of the published articles. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's originality, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, practical and policy implications, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

The review process consists of the following stages:

1. Online Submission

Authors must submit manuscripts exclusively through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS). Submissions sent by email or other channels will not be considered.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor conducts an initial evaluation to determine whether the manuscript:

  • complies with the journal's author guidelines and formatting requirements;
  • falls within the journal's focus and scope;
  • demonstrates sufficient academic quality and originality; and
  • satisfies the journal's ethical and publication standards.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).

3. Similarity Check

All manuscripts are screened using Turnitin or equivalent plagiarism-detection software.

  • Manuscripts with an overall similarity index exceeding 20% (excluding references, quotations, and commonly used phrases) may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected at the editor's discretion.
  • Any indication of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical publication practices will result in immediate rejection.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers under a double-blind peer review system.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • originality and novelty;
  • theoretical contribution;
  • methodological soundness;
  • validity and reliability of results;
  • clarity of presentation;
  • relevance to sustainable finance and development; and
  • significance for academic research, professional practice, and public policy.

The review process is constructive, and reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed recommendations to help authors improve their manuscripts.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept – the manuscript is accepted for publication without further revisions.
  • Minor Revision – minor improvements are required before acceptance.
  • Major Revision – substantial revisions are required, after which the manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.
  • Reject – the manuscript is not suitable for publication due to insufficient originality, methodological weaknesses, lack of contribution, ethical concerns, or incompatibility with the journal's scope.

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

6. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision are required to:

  • revise the manuscript according to reviewers' and editors' comments;
  • submit a revised manuscript within the specified deadline; and
  • upload a detailed Response to Reviewers document explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Failure to submit revisions within the allotted time without prior communication may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from the editorial process.

7. Final Acceptance and Production

Once a manuscript has been accepted, it proceeds to:

  • copyediting;
  • language editing (if necessary);
  • layout and typesetting;
  • author proofreading; and
  • final publication.

Accepted articles are published in the earliest available issue unless otherwise determined by the Editorial Board (anggiaprizal@akbil.ac.id)

Review Ethics

SUFID adheres to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and follows the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to maintain confidentiality, objectivity, academic integrity, and ethical conduct throughout the editorial and peer review process.

Noted 

The initial editorial screening, including the desk evaluation and similarity check, is generally completed within a maximum of four (4) weeks after manuscript submission. Manuscripts that successfully pass this stage will have their status in the Open Journal Systems (OJS) updated from "Awaiting Assignment" to "In Review." The external double-blind peer review process typically requires four (4) to eight (8) weeks, depending on the availability and responsiveness of the assigned reviewers and editors. In some cases, additional time may be required to ensure a thorough and high-quality review.

Authors may monitor the progress of their manuscripts through the journal's OJS platform. If no update has been received after the estimated review period, authors are encouraged to contact the Editorial Office through the journal's official communication channels available on the journal website. SUFID is committed to conducting a fair, transparent, timely, and rigorous peer review process while maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity.