Performance: Jurnal Personalia, Financial, Operasional, Marketing dan Sistem Informasi implements a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution of all manuscripts considered for publication.

1. Peer Review Model

Performance adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and ability to provide objective and constructive evaluations.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor before entering the external peer review process.

The initial screening evaluates:

• Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope.
• Compliance with Author Guidelines and formatting requirements.
• Originality and relevance of the research.
• Clarity of research objectives and scholarly contribution.
• Appropriateness of the research methodology.
• Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity.
• Similarity screening and potential plagiarism concerns.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned for preliminary corrections or rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewers are selected according to their subject expertise, academic competence, and independence from the authors.

The editorial team takes reasonable measures to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest before assigning reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally.

4. Peer Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

1. Originality and Novelty: The extent to which the research provides new knowledge, perspectives, or empirical evidence.
2. Theoretical Contribution: The relevance and contribution of the study to existing theories and scholarly literature.
3. Research Objectives: The clarity and significance of research questions, objectives, and hypotheses.
4. Literature Review: The adequacy, relevance, and critical integration of previous studies.
5. Methodological Rigor: The appropriateness of research design, sampling, measurement, data collection, and analysis.
6. Results and Discussion: The clarity of findings, validity of interpretations, and integration with previous research.
7. Conclusions and Implications: The consistency of conclusions with findings and the relevance of theoretical and practical implications.
8. Academic Writing: The clarity, coherence, organization, and quality of scholarly presentation.
9. Research Ethics: Compliance with ethical principles and responsible research reporting practices.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Following their evaluation, reviewers may recommend:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
• Revisions Required: The manuscript requires revisions that can be evaluated by the editor.
• Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revision and further peer review.
• Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific or editorial standards.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

6. Editorial Decision and Revision Process

The assigned editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and determines the appropriate editorial decision.

Authors receiving revision requests must submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Authors should clearly identify changes made to the manuscript and provide scholarly justifications for recommendations that have not been adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editorial team, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

Additional revision rounds may be requested when necessary to ensure scientific quality.

7. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor based on reviewer evaluations, scientific merit, journal relevance, ethical compliance, and the adequacy of revisions.

Editorial decisions are independent of authors' institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, personal characteristics, or financial considerations.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not depend on the payment of article processing charges.

8. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

All manuscripts submitted to Performance are treated as confidential scholarly documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline review assignments when their impartiality may be compromised.

Editorial decisions must be based on academic merit and must not be influenced by personal, institutional, or commercial interests.

9. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

Performance follows established principles of publication ethics and takes into consideration relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, or other research misconduct will be investigated through appropriate editorial procedures.

Where necessary, the editorial team may request clarification, additional documentation, or supporting research data from authors.

Further information is available in the Publication Ethics Policy.

10. Peer Review Transparency

Performance is committed to maintaining a fair, objective, confidential, and accountable peer review process.

The journal communicates editorial decisions and reviewer comments to authors through its online journal management system.

The editorial team is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the review process and ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated according to consistent scholarly standards.

---

Peer Review Information

• Peer Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review
• Minimum Number of Reviewers: Two independent reviewers
• Final Decision Authority: Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor
• Peer Review Platform: Open Journal Systems (OJS)