Focus and Scope
JURNAL PENGEMBANGAN KOTA/ JPK (ISSN: 2337-7062) provides a forum for publishing the original research articles, review articles, and short communication articles related to urban studies and development.
This journal encompasses original research articles, review articles, and short communications, including:
- Human settlement;
- Urban transportation;
- Urban tourism;
- Urban disaster;
- Urban environmental;
- Urban sociology;
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed
Peer Review Process
Every manuscript submitted to Jurnal Pengembangan Kotawill be peer reviewed by two referees/reviewers. The mechanism is double blind. The manuscript will be made anonym for the reviewers, and so are the reviewers for the author/s. The final decision is made by the editorial board based on the review results.Plagiarism is strictly prohibited in Jurnal Pengembangan Kota. The journal utilizes plagiarism detecting softwares like Turnitin.com
Journal Pengembangan Kota a scientific journal in the field of urban studies and development. Published every 6 months in July and December.
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.
This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...
Indexing and Abstracting
The team at Jurnal Pengembangan Kota is working constantly to increase the visibility and dissemination or the journal's scientific content. This website will be updated regularly to provide up-to-date information on the databases, summaries and portals that index the content of the JPK.
The editor of the JURNAL PENGEMBANGAN KOTA/ JPK is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention. Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Manuscripts submitted to JURNAL PENGEMBANGAN KOTA/JPK will be screened for plagiarism and self-plagiarism using turnitin.com, Google-based search engines, journals databases, and other online plagiarism detection tools. Depending on the level of originality and similarities with other documents, the managing editor will decide on whether to immediately reject the manuscripts, contact authors for further clarifications, or to proceed to the peer-review process.
JPK’s External Review Board is a collegiate body whose fundamental role is to maintain this scientific journal’s high standards of excellence by blind peer review –based exclusively on the quality of the content of the manuscripts and performed by experts whose prestige in the field is internationally recognized –which is the best guarantee for scientific progress and to keep this journal’s original and valuable scientific work in the forefront.
The review of manuscripts by national and international experts is the key to selecting those articles that will have the greatest impact on the scientific community. This review process also provides the authors with an objective report on the strong and weak points of their manuscripts once accepted for peer review.
All the reviews carried out for JPK are based on the standardized international double blind peer review system that ensures author and reviewer anonymity.
JPK Review Board consists of a group of nastional/international experts in various subjects with no professional relation with the journal’s editorial board. They can be members of the Scientific, Advisory or Technical Boards but their independence and anonymity is guaranteed when acting as manuscript referees. Once a year, the journal publishes a full list of its reviewers on its official website
Criteria for accepting/rejecting reviewed manuscripts
JPK requests the collaboration of the external reviewers in order to facilitate the communication with the authors of the manuscripts. In any case, the acceptance of the manuscripts must be linked to:
- Knowledge of and academic experience in the subject of the manuscript. Invitation to a reviewer necessarily means he / she has a firm grasp of the subject of the article.
- Availability. Reviewing an article requires dedicating time and thought to evaluating the manuscript
- Conflict of interest. A conflict of interest can occur as a result of proximity or hostility to the authors if the reviewer identifies the authors even though their names have been removed from the manuscript. Referees must declare any conflict of interest and reject the editors’ invitation to evaluate a manuscript when, for instance, they identify the authorship of the manuscript, are academically or familiarly close to the authors, belong to the same university, department, research group, professional network, research project as the author or has published articles with the author, …or any other type of connection or conflict / professional proximity. In this case the reviewer must decline the offer from the editor to review the article. The authors can inform the journal via the platform to say which researchers might have a conflict of interest with their submission; reviewers must do likewise.
- A commitment to confidentiality. The reviewer must maintain strict confidentiality when assessing a manuscript and must not divulge its content to third parties. If the reviewer wishes to get a second opinion on the article, he / she must consult the editor, whose approval is necessary for the manuscript to be viewed by a second referee. The editors welcome these additional comments provided that strict confidentiality is maintained throughout the entire review process. These additional evaluations and recommendations will help the editors make a final decision on the manuscript.
The task of reviewer
As a peer reviewer, the task of the External Reviewer is to provide a constructive, critical analysis of the manuscript content, to collaborate with the general editors and the subject editors in checking / ratifying whether the work is of high scientific value and complies with this journal’s standards of excellence in order to be accepted and edited.
The opinion of the reviewers is vital for detecting content originality and excellence that is presented in a clear and concise way.
The reviewers will provide a general assessment of the «impact priority» remarking on the probability of the article having a strong and lasting influence on the research areasthat interest the journal.
General criteria for the review of manuscripts
- Subject. For the central theme of the article to be relevant and of scientific value it must be both specific (detailed in a local context without being parochial) and of broader interest to the international scientific community.
- Style. The reviewer’s report of the critical evaluation of the manuscript must be written in an objective style using quotes directly from the text submitted or citing references of interest in order to support his / her argument.
- Originality. Originality and suitability are essential criteria for the manuscript to be selected for our journal.
- Structure. The manuscripts should include the main elements of an academic journal: summary/abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions.
JPK’s reviewers must carry out a thorough analysis of the manuscript, contrasting the information presented, checking the scientific literature used to support the document and present a quantitative and qualitative report to the editors on the suitability of the work for publication. For this purpose, they will use the evaluation sheet with the following aspects:
- Title, abstract and keywords (quality and structure)
- Relevance of the subject
- Originality of the paper
- Literature review. Relevance of references. Currency of the literature review.
- Structure and organization. Scientific writing
- Scientific and methodological rigor
- Data interpretation and analysis
- Originality. Conclusions
- Overall assessment
If a reviewer considers that the article is a substantial copy of another work, they should notify the Editors, providing detailed citations of the previous work.
If there is a real or remote suspicion that the article results are false or fraudulent, reviewers must notify the Editors.
Report to the Editors
Reviewers’ comments should be respectful and constructive, and they should not include personal data. In this sense, the partial assessments regarding some content and formal aspects should consider the following evaluation criteria:
- Degree of interest and topicality of the subject.
- Relevance and how up‐to‐date the sources are.
- Clear and interesting theoretical proposition.
- Clarity in the presentation of the work’s objectives.
- Adequacy of the methodological design in relation to the work’s objectives.
- Relevance and correction of data analysis procedures (if appropriate).
- Interesting empirical data provided (if appropriate).
- Interesting and relevant discussion, results and conclusions.
- Interesting and relevant from a professional didactic viewpoint
- Organization and structure.
- Well-balanced extension of sections and adequate content.
- Writing and style.
- Presentation of tables and figures.
- Bibliographic references (APA norms apply, with citations in the text matching the reference in the list at the end of the text).
Categories of classification of a manuscript
The categories that «JPK» uses to classify a reviewed manuscript are:
- Accept Submission: The article is suitable for publication in its present form.
- Revision Required: Any required changes are minor; the editor will verify that the author made the recommended changes.
- Resubmit for Review: The article is acceptable for publication provided that significant changes are made, as indicated by the comments below. The revision should be re-reviewed.
- Resubmit for Elsewhere: The article is better suited for another journal.
- Decline Submission: This article is not suitable for publication in JPK.
- See Comments: The reviewer cannot choose from any of the above.