Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal Manajemen adalah media sarana komunikasi dan publikasi ilmiah dari hasil-hasil pemikiran dan penelitian ilmu manajemen yang dilaksanakan oleh dosen, peneliti dan lembaga riset terkait.


Topik utama dari Jurnal Manajemen adalah semua tulisan atau penelitian yang berhubungan dengan ilmu manajemen, antara lain:

1. Manajemen Keuangan

2. Manajemen Pemasaran

3. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia

4. Manajemen Produksi

5. Manajemen Strategik

Jurnal Manajemen selain konsentrasi yang disebutkan di atas, juga menerima tulisan atau penelitian yang berhubungan dengan ilmu manajemen lainnya.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Setiap tulisan yang masuk ke Jurnal Manajemen harus mengikuti standarisasi yang telah ditetapkan oleh tim pengelola jurnal. Naskah yang terkirim harus memiliki keterkaitan dengan ilmu manajemen sesuai dengan topik jurnal dan diharapkan naskah yang masuk bebas plagiarism, sekiranya penulis memperhatikan hal tersebut.

Artikel atau tulisan yang masuk akan dievaluasi atau direview oleh minimal 2 (dua) reviewer, akan dilihat dan diberikan komentar dari sisi teknis penulisan dan substansinya. Apabila masih terdapat kesalahan dan kekurangan di dalam tulisan atau naskah, maka reviewer akan menyampaikan kepada penulis untuk diperbaiki.

Keputusan akhir dari penerimaan tulisan atau naskah setelah dilengkapi apa yang menjadi kekurangan dalam tulisan. Selanjutkan akan dibuat oleh tim editor jurnal dan tetap memperhatikan urutan waktu pemasukan dan penyempurnaan tulisan sampai pada terbitnya jurnal.


Publication Frequency

Jurnal Manajemen (Management Journal) are published twice a year (February and Agustus) through Open Journal System (OJS)


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.


Publication Ethics


Professional responsibility

Authors who have benefited from the peer review process should consider becoming peer reviewers as a part of their professional responsibilities. Some journals require a formal process of appointment to the review panel, and some require specific expertise; anyone interested in becoming a reviewer should look for the journal guidelines on peer review and follow any requirements posted. In order to assign appropriate reviewers, editors must match reviewers with the scope of the content in a manuscript to get the best reviews possible. Potential reviewers should provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information. It is important to recognise that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct (eg, see COPE Case 12-12: Compromised peer review system in published papers) (https://cope.onl/case-review-2). When approached to review, agree to review only if you have the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in your assessment. It is better to identify clearly any gaps in your expertise when asked to review.

Competing interests

Ensure you declare all potential competing, or conflicting, interests. If you are unsure about a potential competing interest that may prevent you from reviewing, do raise this. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature. If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (eg, within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, you should not agree to review. In addition, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review, or agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one you have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.


It is courteous to respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time frame, even if you cannot undertake the review. If you feel qualified to judge a particular manuscript, you should agree to review only if you are able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame. Always inform the journal promptly if your circumstances change and you cannot fulfil your original agreement or if you require an extension. If you cannot review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).


Initial steps

Read the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly (eg, reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements), getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal. It is important to understand the scope of the review before commencing (ie, is a review of raw data expected?).


Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others (eg, see COPE Case 14-06: Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality) (http://cope.onl/case-breach). Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal (eg, see COPE Case 11-29: Reviewer asks trainee to review manuscript) (https://cope.onl/case-reviewer). The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

Bias and competing interests

It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review, notify the journal and seek advice (eg, see COPE Case 15-05: Reviewer requests to be added as an author after publication) (https://cope.onl/case-author). While waiting for a response, refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material in case the request to review is rescinded. Similarly, notify the journal as soon as possible if you find you do not have the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript so as not to unduly delay the review process. In the case of double blind review, if you suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential competing or conflict of interest.

Suspicion of ethics violations

If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics do let the journal know (eg, see COPE Case 02-11: Contacting research ethics committees with concerns over studies) (https://cope.onl/case-research). For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

Transferability of peer review

Publishers may have policies related to transferring peer reviews to other journals in the publisher’s portfolio (sometimes referred to as portable or cascading peer review). Reviewers may be asked to give permission for the transfer of their reviews if that is journal policy. If a manuscript is rejected from one journal and submitted to another, and you are asked to review that same manuscript, you should be prepared to review the manuscript afresh as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journal’s criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different. In the interests of transparency and efficiency it may be appropriate to provide your original review for the new journal (with permission to do so from the original journal), explaining that you had reviewed the submission previously and noting any changes. (See discussion2 with Pete Binfield and Elizabeth Moylan highlighting some of the issues surrounding portable peer review).