Peer Review Policy

Aurora: Journal of Emerging Business Paradigms, published by PT. Sangadji Media Publishing, employs an online submission system and adopts a double-blind peer review process to ensure objectivity and academic rigor. All submissions are evaluated according to strict editorial and peer review guidelines, and all parties involved—including editors, reviewers, and authors—are expected to adhere to the established procedures and ethical standards.

Preliminary Review

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial board to assess whether the submission complies with the journal’s scope and author guidelines. During this stage, each manuscript is also screened using plagiarism detection software.

After the preliminary evaluation, the editor may take one of the following actions:

  • Returned for Corrections: If the manuscript contains minor formatting issues or incomplete information, the editor may return it to the author for revisions prior to resubmission.

  • Rejected: Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they fall outside the journal’s scope or fail to meet the basic requirements of academic writing, formatting, or originality.

  • Sent for Peer Review: If the manuscript meets the journal’s basic requirements, it will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

Peer Review

In the peer review stage, reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Alignment between the research objectives and methods

  • Accuracy and transparency of the methodology

  • Clarity and coherence of data presentation and analysis

  • Validity of conclusions based on presented evidence

  • Originality, contribution to the field, and overall scholarly impact

The peer review process may take several weeks to a few months depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. Authors may monitor the status of their submission through the journal’s submission portal.

Reviewers will provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept as is (rare)

  • Minor revision required

  • Major revision required

  • Reject

Revision Process

Following the peer review, the editorial decision along with reviewer comments will be communicated to the author. Manuscripts marked as “rejected” are not eligible for resubmission unless substantially reworked.

For manuscripts requiring revisions:

  • Major Revisions: Authors are given 4–6 weeks to address all comments and submit a revised version.

  • Minor Revisions: Authors are given 1–2 weeks to revise and resubmit.

Revisions may include suggestions for language editing or clarification of methods and data. Authors must respond to each reviewer comment in a point-by-point format and submit both the revised manuscript and a response letter.

Failure to respond within the given time frame may result in withdrawal of the submission. Extensions may be granted upon request.

The editor will review the revised manuscript and may request further review by the original or new reviewers to ensure all concerns have been addressed. Multiple rounds of revision may occur. Rejection remains a possible outcome at any stage if the revision is deemed inadequate.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial board and based on the reviewers’ evaluations, will make the final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript. All decisions are final and binding. Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production phase.

Production

Once accepted, the manuscript is forwarded to the production team for copyediting, typesetting, and final formatting. Authors will receive a proof of the article and are required to confirm its accuracy. At this stage, authors will be asked to sign the Copyright Agreement.

No further content revisions are allowed at the proof stage. Authors who fail to respond within the specified time will be deemed to have approved the final version for publication.