Peer Review Policy Statement

Journal of Tax Policy, Economics, and Accounting (TAXPEDIA), published by MUC Tax Research Institute, adopts a double-blind peer-review model to support independent scholarly evaluation, minimize the influence of author and reviewer identities, and strengthen the fairness and integrity of editorial decisions.

Under the double-blind model, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the confidential review process.

Manuscripts are evaluated on their scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, evidence quality, analytical contribution, and compliance with research and publication ethics. Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized handling editor.

The peer-review process is intended to ensure that scholarly articles published in TAXPEDIA meet appropriate academic, methodological, and ethical standards. The principal objectives are to:

1. Evaluate the relevance of submitted manuscripts to the journal's Aim and Scope.
2. Assess originality, novelty, and the significance of the scholarly contribution.
3. Examine the suitability and transparency of research methods or analytical approaches.
4. Evaluate the reliability, accuracy, and adequacy of supporting evidence.
5. Assess the logical relationship between research objectives, findings, discussion, and conclusions.
6. Promote constructive scholarly criticism and meaningful manuscript improvement.
7. Identify serious deficiencies in research reporting and potential ethical concerns.
8. Support independent editorial decisions through qualified expert evaluations.
9. Reduce inappropriate influence arising from author reputation, institutional affiliation, or reviewer identity.
10. Maintain the credibility and integrity of the scholarly publication record.

Peer review is an academic quality-assurance mechanism and does not remove the authors' responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of their research.

TAXPEDIA employs a double-blind (double-anonymized) peer-review system for scholarly manuscripts selected for external review.

Double-blind review is designed to reduce identity-related bias but cannot guarantee that identities will never be inferred from research topics, prior publications, public preprints, or other contextual information.

Reviewers must not deliberately investigate the authors' identities. If an identity is inadvertently recognized, reviewers must disclose any resulting conflict of interest to the editor.

Authors must prepare separate files so that author-identifying information is not included in the materials sent to reviewers. 3.1. Title Page — Confidential Editorial File The title page must be uploaded separately from the anonymized manuscript and must contain:

• The complete manuscript title.
• The full names of all authors, without academic titles.
• Institutional affiliations and countries.
• Corresponding author name and email address.
• ORCID identifiers where available.
• Complete acknowledgments, where applicable.
• Author contributions, funding information, competing-interest statements, and other identifying declarations as appropriate.

The title page is for authorized editorial use and must not be included among files distributed to anonymous reviewers.

3.2. Anonymized Manuscript — Reviewer File The anonymized manuscript must include the scholarly content required for evaluation while excluding identifying author information. It should contain:

• Manuscript title without author information.
• English and Indonesian abstracts and keywords.
• Introduction, literature review, research method, results and discussion, and conclusion.
• Tables, figures, references, and non-identifying supporting information.
• Appropriately anonymized Acknowledgments and Declarations headings or statements, where their content could disclose author identity.

3.3. Supplementary Files Data files, research instruments, appendices, response documents, and other materials intended for reviewers must also be checked for identifying information.

The corresponding author is responsible for identifying which files contain confidential author information and which are suitable for anonymous peer review.

Before submission, authors must remove direct and reasonably avoidable indirect identifiers from the reviewer version of the manuscript. The following information should be removed or anonymized:

1. Author names, email addresses, affiliations, and ORCID identifiers.
2. Institutional logos, department names, and identifying author biographies.
3. Personal acknowledgments revealing the authors' identities.
4. Identifying funding or grant details where they would disclose authorship.
5. Direct statements such as "in our previous study" followed by readily identifying references.
6. Self-identifying references to research teams or institutions, where unnecessary to the scientific argument.
7. File names containing author names or identifying organizational information.
8. Document properties, embedded author metadata, and identifying revision history.
9. Comments, tracked changes, or other hidden document information containing author identities.
10. Identifying information in supplementary materials, repository links, or file attachments.

Anonymization of Self-Citations Authors may cite their previous work when academically relevant. Such citations should be written objectively, in the same manner as citations to other scholars. The journal does not require unnecessary deletion of relevant citations merely to conceal authorship.

Authors should preserve accurate references wherever possible. Temporary masking of an identifying citation must be clearly managed by the editor and restored before publication.

The official TAXPEDIA manuscript structure requires: This arrangement applies to the final publication-ready manuscript. During double-blind review, however, author-identifying information within Acknowledgments and Declarations must be handled separately. 5.1. Acknowledgments Identifying acknowledgments must be placed in the confidential title-page file and excluded from the version distributed to reviewers. In the anonymized manuscript, authors may use: 5.2. Declarations Author contributions, identifiable funding information, institutional ethics approvals, and other identifying declarations should be provided confidentially to the editor. Where a declaration can be presented without compromising anonymity, a suitable non-identifying statement may remain in the reviewer manuscript.

Declarations must not be falsified or omitted from editorial disclosure simply to maintain anonymity. Authors must supply complete and accurate information to the Editorial Office.

5.3. Restoration Before Publication After acceptance, the complete Acknowledgments and Declarations sections must be restored in their correct positions before References.

The final published version must accurately identify the authors and contain the relevant acknowledgments and disclosures.

The Editorial Office must check the files designated for reviewers before initiating a double-blind review assignment. Relevant checks include:

• Verifying that a separate confidential title page is provided.
• Confirming that the reviewer manuscript contains no directly identifying author information.
• Checking document properties and visible comments or tracked changes.
• Ensuring that supplementary files distributed to reviewers are appropriately anonymized.
• Checking that review reports and editorial correspondence do not inadvertently identify reviewers to authors.
• Ensuring that author-identifying metadata are not disclosed through reviewer-facing files or communications.

Manuscripts that have not been adequately anonymized may be returned to the corresponding author for correction before reviewer assignment.

Editors must use the appropriate OJS anonymous-review configuration and verify access permissions for each reviewer assignment. The use of a double-blind label alone does not automatically anonymize uploaded files.

All manuscripts undergo preliminary evaluation before external peer review.

A manuscript may be returned for technical correction or rejected without external peer review when it does not meet essential scholarly, scope, or ethical standards.

A manuscript may be referred for independent evaluation when it:

• Falls within the journal's disciplinary scope.
• Addresses a clear research question or scholarly problem.
• Demonstrates potential originality and a meaningful contribution.
• Uses an appropriate research design or analytical framework.
• Provides sufficient evidence for scientific evaluation.
• Complies substantially with journal formatting and submission requirements.
• Contains adequate citations and verifiable sources.
• Does not present unresolved serious research-integrity concerns.
• Has been prepared appropriately for double-blind evaluation.

Passing initial screening does not guarantee acceptance. It indicates only that the manuscript is considered suitable for independent scholarly assessment.

The following stages describe the journal's review and editorial decision workflow.

Reviewers are selected according to their relevant scholarly expertise, professional integrity, independence, and availability. Selection considerations include:

• Academic or professional expertise in the subject area.
• Competence in the methods or analytical approaches used.
• Relevant research publications or demonstrated specialist knowledge.
• Ability to provide objective and constructive evaluation.
• Absence of material competing interests.
• Ability to complete the review within an agreed period.

The number of reviewers is determined by the editorial requirements of the manuscript, the diversity of expertise needed, and the availability of qualified independent experts.

Additional reviewers may be appointed when the manuscript requires complementary expertise or when earlier evaluations are substantially inconsistent.

Editors must avoid assigning reviewers whose known professional, personal, financial, or institutional relationships create material conflicts with the authors or subject matter.

Reviewers are expected to conduct their assessments objectively, independently, confidentially, and professionally. Before Accepting an Assignment

• Confirm sufficient disciplinary and methodological expertise.
• Disclose relevant competing interests.
• Assess their ability to complete the review on time.
• Decline assignments that cannot be reviewed competently or impartially.

During the Review

• Evaluate scholarly quality rather than author reputation.
• Provide clear, constructive, evidence-based criticism.
• Distinguish major scientific concerns from minor presentation issues.
• Identify material weaknesses and recommend appropriate improvements.
• Respect manuscript confidentiality and intellectual property.
• Avoid personal attacks, discriminatory statements, and coercive citation demands.
• Report credible ethical concerns confidentially to the editor.
• Avoid searching for or attempting to establish the author's identity.

After the Review

• Submit the report using the authorized journal workflow.
• Provide a reasoned recommendation to the editor.
• Continue protecting confidential manuscript information.
• Refrain from exploiting unpublished ideas or data.

Reviewers may not delegate their review to assistants, colleagues, students, or other individuals without prior editorial authorization and appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to criteria appropriate to their article type and research design.

Reviewers should distinguish between deficiencies that affect the validity of scholarly conclusions and matters that can be corrected through editing or clarification.

Review criteria must be applied according to the nature of the submitted study.

Reviewers must not demand empirical procedures that are inappropriate for conceptual or doctrinal research. Evaluation should reflect the manuscript's legitimate scholarly design.

A reviewer report should provide a reasoned academic assessment rather than a recommendation without explanation. An effective report should contain:

1. Overall Evaluation: A concise assessment of the manuscript's topic, objectives, and contribution.
2. Major Strengths: Important scholarly or methodological qualities.
3. Major Concerns: Deficiencies affecting originality, evidence, analysis, or conclusions.
4. Minor Concerns: Issues of presentation, clarity, formatting, citations, or terminology.
5. Actionable Recommendations: Specific improvements that authors can reasonably address.
6. Editorial Recommendation: A justified recommendation concerning publication suitability.

Reports must remain anonymous to authors. Reviewers should avoid including names, personal affiliations, or identifying signatures in comments and attached reports.

The editor makes decisions after considering reviewer reports, manuscript quality, research integrity, and journal standards.

Authors requested to revise their manuscripts must provide a clear and academically reasoned response to editorial and reviewer comments. A revised submission should include:

• An updated anonymized manuscript.
• A point-by-point response to reviewer and editorial comments.
• A clear explanation of each substantive revision.
• References to relevant manuscript sections or lines where practical.
• Reasoned justification when a particular recommendation is not adopted.
• Updated tables, figures, references, and non-identifying supplementary materials where appropriate.

Authors must ensure that the revised manuscript and response file do not disclose identifying information to reviewers.

Illustrative Response

Revisions must be submitted within the deadline communicated through the editorial system. Authors may request an extension where justified.

After revision, the editor may examine the manuscript directly or request further evaluation from an original or additional reviewer. A further review may be required when:

• Major methodological concerns remain unresolved.
• Substantial new analyses or evidence have been added.
• Reviewer recommendations are significantly inconsistent.
• Additional disciplinary or methodological expertise is necessary.
• New ethical or research-integrity concerns arise.

Where reviewer recommendations conflict, the editor assesses their reasoning and supporting evidence rather than deciding by a simple count of recommendations.

The same double-blind identity protections apply to every additional review cycle.

A manuscript may be rejected following revision when major deficiencies persist. The journal is not obligated to provide unlimited revision opportunities.

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise independent scholarly judgment. Potential conflicts include:

• Recent research collaboration or shared publications.
• Close personal or professional relationships.
• Supervisory or academic mentoring relationships.
• Financial or commercial interests.
• Institutional or professional arrangements creating material bias.
• Direct academic or commercial competition.

Accidental Identification of Authors A reviewer may occasionally recognize the likely authors through the research topic, cited works, previously available preprints, or other contextual evidence. Where this occurs, the reviewer should:

1. Avoid investigating the identity further.
2. Inform the editor confidentially where a relevant conflict or serious risk to impartiality arises.
3. Follow the editor's determination regarding continued participation.

Recognition of an author's identity does not automatically invalidate an entire review, but any related conflict of interest must be evaluated.

Editorial Recusal Editors with a material conflict must not independently manage the manuscript or determine its final publication outcome. Another appropriately independent editor should be assigned.

Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and restricted supplementary materials are confidential. All authorized participants must:

• Use confidential research materials only for legitimate editorial purposes.
• Avoid sharing manuscripts with unauthorized parties.
• Protect author and reviewer identities in accordance with double-blind review.
• Refrain from using unpublished data, ideas, or findings for personal advantage.
• Protect confidential taxpayer information, business records, and personal data.
• Use authorized editorial communication and document-management channels.
• Maintain confidentiality after the review process ends.

The confidentiality requirements apply to all review stages, including invitations, revisions, additional evaluations, appeals, and post-review correspondence.

The use of artificial intelligence in peer review must not compromise manuscript confidentiality, intellectual property, data privacy, or independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, review reports, supplementary files, or restricted research data into external generative AI systems without appropriate editorial authorization and safeguards.

• Human reviewers retain full responsibility for scholarly assessments.
• AI-generated analysis must not replace independent academic judgment.
• Confidential manuscript information must not be disclosed to unauthorized AI platforms.
• AI-generated references, interpretations, or scientific claims must be independently checked.
• Substantive authorized AI assistance must be disclosed to the editor.
• Review reports must not contain fabricated observations or unsupported AI-generated claims.

Routine language correction must also respect the confidentiality of review materials. The journal may restrict specific AI tools where their use is incompatible with confidentiality or research-integrity requirements.

Reviewers and editors must report credible concerns involving:

• Plagiarism and serious unattributed reuse.
• Data fabrication or falsification.
• Manipulated financial records, figures, or statistical findings.
• Fabricated bibliographic or legal references.
• Duplicate or simultaneous submissions.
• Misleading authorship or contribution claims.
• Compromised peer review or fabricated reviewer identities.
• Unlawful disclosure of confidential records.
• Other material breaches of publication ethics.

The editor may request clarification, examine relevant evidence, suspend review where appropriate, or consult an independent specialist or relevant institution.

Allegations must be addressed fairly. Authors should ordinarily have an opportunity to respond to significant concerns before a final determination.

TAXPEDIA seeks to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining the independence and academic quality of evaluations. Review duration may depend on:

• The complexity of the research.
• The availability of suitably qualified reviewers.
• The completeness of manuscript files and anonymization.
• The number and substance of necessary revisions.
• The need for further methodological or ethical assessment.
• The timeliness of authors' and reviewers' responses.

Specific review and revision deadlines are communicated through the journal's editorial system. No guaranteed acceptance or publication period is implied.

Withdrawal Before Publication Authors may request withdrawal of an unpublished manuscript through the Editorial Office, providing a clear explanation and appropriate confirmation from co-authors where applicable.

The request must be appropriately documented. Post-publication concerns are managed through the journal's Retraction, Correction, and Withdrawal Policy.

The Editor-in-Chief and authorized editors are responsible for maintaining independent editorial evaluation. Manuscripts must not receive preferential treatment because of:

• Author reputation or academic position.
• Institutional affiliation or nationality.
• Personal relationships with editors or reviewers.
• Financial contributions or publication-related payments.
• Invitation to contribute to an issue or thematic collection.

Editorial Board Submissions Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial team or closely connected parties must be assigned to an appropriately independent editor. The submitting editor must not access confidential reviewer identities or influence the review and decision concerning their own manuscript. Invited Papers and Special Issues Invited scholarly contributions must meet the journal's applicable academic and ethical requirements. Article types exempt from ordinary external peer review, if any, must be clearly distinguished from peer-reviewed research publications.

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe a material procedural error, conflict of interest, misunderstanding, or overlooked evidence has affected an editorial decision. An appeal should include:

1. The manuscript title and submission identifier.
2. The decision being appealed.
3. A clear explanation of the grounds for reconsideration.
4. Relevant supporting evidence or documents.
5. A specific requested outcome.

The appeal should be evaluated impartially by an authorized editor who does not have a relevant conflict of interest.

An appeal does not automatically overturn a rejection or establish a right to additional peer review. Academic disagreement alone is insufficient without substantiated grounds.

Complaints concerning reviewer misconduct, improper disclosure of identities, breaches of confidentiality, discriminatory treatment, or manipulation of the review process must be assessed under the journal's applicable ethical procedures.

After formal acceptance, the journal prepares the publication version of the article. The production process may include:

1. Confirming final author names, affiliations, and corresponding author information.
2. Restoring complete Acknowledgments and Declarations.
3. Ensuring that the final article follows the required section order.
4. Verifying funding, authorship contributions, competing interests, and applicable ethics declarations.
5. Checking references, citations, DOI links, and bibliographic information.
6. Reviewing tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
7. Copyediting, layout preparation, and proofreading.
8. Preparing and verifying article metadata.

The final publication version must not retain anonymous-review placeholders in place of disclosures that are required for publication.

The journal should ensure that restoration of identifying information does not introduce discrepancies between the accepted manuscript and its publication metadata.

The Editorial Office should maintain accurate confidential records of the manuscript evaluation process. Relevant records include:

• Submission and editorial assignment histories.
• Reviewer invitations and acceptance or decline records.
• Relevant conflict-of-interest declarations.
• Reviewer reports and recommendations.
• Editorial decisions and decision letters.
• Revision files and responses to reviewers.
• Additional review and appeal proceedings where applicable.
• Final acceptance and production documentation.

The Editor-in-Chief or editorial leadership should evaluate the constructiveness, methodological rigor, fairness, and timeliness of reviews as part of continued quality improvement.

Public article records should accurately reflect publication status and relevant dates where recorded and technically supported.

Confidential reviewer identities and internal reports must not be publicly disclosed without an appropriate authorization or applicable legal requirement.

The responsibility to maintain publication integrity continues after an article has been published. If significant errors or credible ethical concerns arise, the journal may assess whether a correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or another appropriate action is warranted.

The journal should provide appropriate public notices, preserve accurate bibliographic records, and update relevant article information where applicable.

These actions must be evidence-based, proportional, transparent, and consistent with the journal's Retraction, Correction, and Withdrawal Policy.

Editorial evaluation and peer-review recommendations must remain independent of financial or institutional influence. Under TAXPEDIA's adopted free-publication policy:

• Submission is free of charge.
• Peer review is free of charge.
• Article processing charges are not imposed.
• Publication of accepted articles is free of charge.

Payments, sponsorship, personal connections, institutional position, or other external influences must not determine reviewer recommendations or editorial decisions.

The journal does not offer paid acceptance or preferential peer review in exchange for financial contributions.

This peer-review policy is informed by internationally recognized principles of research integrity, confidential manuscript evaluation, editorial independence, and transparent scholarly publishing. Relevant guidance includes:

• COPE Core Practices — Principles of publication ethics and editorial accountability.
• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers — Reviewer responsibilities, conflicts of interest, objectivity, and confidentiality.
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — Transparency regarding review models and editorial procedures.
• Double-Anonymized Peer Review Guidance — Preparation of separate title pages and anonymous reviewer manuscripts.

Reference to these guidelines does not imply formal membership, accreditation, or endorsement by the organizations that publish them.

Before submitting or assigning a manuscript for review, the relevant author and editor should check the following requirements.

Commitment to Fair and Independent Peer Review TAXPEDIA is committed to conducting confidential, impartial, constructive, and evidence-based double-blind peer review. The journal seeks to ensure that manuscripts are judged on the originality, quality, validity, relevance, and scholarly contribution of their content rather than the identities or institutional affiliations of authors or reviewers. Editorial and publication decisions remain the responsibility of authorized editorial leadership and must comply with the journal's ethical and scholarly standards.

Author Guidelines Publication Ethics Plagiarism Policy Retraction, Correction & Withdrawal Contact Editorial Office

Journal of Tax Policy, Economics, and Accounting (TAXPEDIA)