Author Guideline

Jurnal Manajemen Publik dan KebijakanPublik (JMPKP) has a strong desire to develop knowledge by publishing selected articles. The criteria that influence the editor's decision are: 1) whether it increases our understanding of the topic under study; 2) developing new theoretical accounts or empirical findings that challenge previous understandings; 3) or at least engage with previous research.

JMPKP try to identify work that challenges prevailing assumptions and established research. Building a coherent, cumulative body of knowledge typically involves research that offers new syntheses or themes, identifies new patterns or causal sequences, or generates new propositions. Authors should clearly articulate what we learn from their research that we did not know before.

We are receptive to multiple forms of grounding but not to a lack of theoretical grounding. We do not attach greater significance to one methodological style than another, but we value data. Consequently, we are open to work based on qualitative or quantitative data collected from archives, the lab, or the field, as well as simulations and formal models.

We are interested in compact presentations of theory and research, suspecting that very long manuscripts contain an unclear line of argument, multiple arguments, or no argument at all. We are interested in good writing, as poor writing often leads to unclear statements of contribution, confusing theoretical development, and other problems that are common in submissions that receive rejection decisions. We're looking for manuscripts that are well argued (clear and logical) and well written (accessible and well phrased). Clear writing reflects clear thinking. Manuscripts that are inappropriate will be returned promptly.

Submission of a manuscript to JMPKP requires that the same manuscript is not under consideration by another journal.

Preparing a Manuscript

General: Manuscript should be written about 2000-5000 words, including abstract, tables, and references, in 12-point font and one and a half spacing. We are open to discuss in cases where there is a need for additional word count. Please include the word count of the manuscript (excluding references) on the title page. All pages should be numbered. Manuscripts submitted must be in Word format or equivalent.

Author(s) Identity: Please ensure that the manuscript is anonymous by omitting your name and funding information, and by citing your own work in the third person as you would any other work.

Abstract: Please ensure that the abstract clearly states the research objectives, the theoretical approach, method and data, results, and findings and implications for theory and future research.

Keywords: You must submit a minimum of 3 and maximum of 5 keywords. When selecting key words please ensure that the first three indicate theory, research theme, and method, the remaining two can expand on those categories or specify the dataset, data source, or context. For example, (Principal-agent theory, local government, interviews, mayors, cities); (Accountability, transparency, experiment, China, leadership); or (Collaboration, environment, SEM, United Nations Basic Set of Environment Statistics).

Main body text: should contain an introduction with a review of the existing literature, conceptual frameworks, methods, findings and discussion, and conclusions. The naming of each section does not have to be exactly as stated, but is expected to contain the desired information. For example, instead of "introduction," authors could use the term "research background". Another example: “methods” could be discussed in the beginning of the finding section. Authors may not use the term “finding” and use different terms which are deemed suitable. Authors are allowed to add more sections if needed, for example to build hypotheses.

References: References should be cited in the text and listed alphabetically in the reference section. JMPKP specific formatting of references follows APA guidelines. Author should use a reference application management such as Mendeley, End Note, or Zotero, etc.

Footnotes: Footnotes should be used sparingly, if at all. Text that is critical to understanding the research should be in the text of the manuscript. Less vital text can go in appendices.

Appendices: Appendices that are vital to understanding the content of the manuscript will be included in the print version. Appendices that offer supplemental materials for deeper understanding should be placed in the online appendix as supplementary material.

Tables and Figures: For review purposes, we recommend placing tables and figures within the text of the manuscript to ease reader comprehension. Ensure that all tables and figures have appropriate titles and everything is properly labelled. Use variable names that are intuitive to readers. Explain all codes, model specification details, and acronyms in table notes. Please report exact p-values for results or confidence intervals, when applicable.

Method and Data Reporting: Clear reports on research design, method, and data analysis improve submission quality, enable more focused reviews, and increase the likelihood of positive reviews. We recommend that submitting authors carefully consider the transparency and reporting of their method and data analysis, when applicable. Identify and report the source of all data. Report all relevant research design details, data collection instruments, and analytical steps including data cleaning, manipulation and construction. Report data flow and provide clear information on measures.  

We recommend submitting authors consult some of the following excellent resources on research reporting, as appropriate.

General Guides

Publications, A. P. A., & on Journal, C. B. W. G. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be?. American Psychologist, 63(9), 839. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839

Quantitative research

Aguinis, H., Hill, N. S., & Bailey, J. R. (2019). Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods

CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340:c332 doi: (Published 24 March 2010)

Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & Trend Group. (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. American journal of public health, 94(3), 361-366.

Qualitative research

Nowell, B., & Albrecht, K. (2018). A reviewer’s guide to qualitative rigor. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 348-363.

Shiyou Wu, Diane C. Wyant, and Mark W. Fraser, "Author Guidelines for Manuscripts Reporting on Qualitative Research," Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 7, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 405-425.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007. Volume 19, Number 6: pp. 349 – 357.

Pratt, Michael G. "From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research." (2009): 856-862.

Privacy Statement

All names and email addresses listed in this Journal portal will be used specifically for journal publication purposes and will not be used for other interests or irresponsible parties.