Scientific Committee and Review Process

Scientific Committee

Editorial Policies

Editors in Chief

Achmad Nurmandi, (Scopus ID: 35731998300)

Expertise : Government Affairs, Strategic Management in Public Sector, e-Government, Urban Governance. Department of Government Affairs and Administration. Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Editorial Boards:

Jin Wook Choi, (Scopus ID : 56388868200)

Expertise : Social Sciences, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Environmental Science. Biomedical Engineering. Korea University, Republic of Korea

Sataporn Roengtam, (Scopus ID : 57196194255)

Expertise : Public Administration Local Governance Citizen Engagement and Public Policy. College of Public Administration.

Khon Kaen University Thailand, Thailand

Sunhyuk Kim, (Scopus ID : 7601596406)

Expertise : Korean Politics, Democratization, Civil Society, Administrative Reform, International Cooperation. Department of Public Administration.

Korea University, South Korea, Korea, Republic of

Ahmad Martadha Mohamed, (Scopus ID : 56675226700)

Expertise : Public Policy, Good Governance, Representative Bureaucracy. School of Government, College of Law, Government and International Studies. University Utara Malaysia, Malaysia

Agus Pramusinto, (Scopus ID: 57197830051)

Expertise : Public Administration, Public Services, Politics

Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia

Prathivadi Anand, (Scopus ID : 7102973468)

Expertise : SDGs, Sustainable Cities, Capability Approach, Policy Analysis, Governance Indicators. Forest Management.

University Bradford, United Kingdom

Desmond Cahill, (Scopus ID : 57036363300)

Expertise : Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Psychology.

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia

Minhaj Alam, (Scopus ID : 35147665200)

Expertise : Political Studies, International Political Economy, Governance and Development, Population and Environment. Governance and Development. Luleå tekniska Universitet, Ethiopia

 

Administrative Officer

Aulia Nur Kasiwi, (Scopus ID : 57215903230)

Expertise : Politics, ICT, Network Society, e-Government, Crowdsourcing. Jusuf Kalla School of Government.

Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Agustiyara (Scopus ID: 57209212552)

Expertise: Environment Policy, Public Affairs and Adminstration.

Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary

Conference papers must meet all the usual standards of quality. However, reviewers will take into account the nature of conference papers. Review papers are also welcomed and accepted. Reviewers will consider background papers more favourably than would be normal for a regular paper. These allowances shall not go so far as to approve papers of low scientific standard. Papers that have been published in written form elsewhere should not be considered.  

Reviewers should consider the following key points related to scientific content, quality and presentation of the papers:

Technical Criteria

  • Scientific merit: notably scientific rigour, accuracy and correctness
  • Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts
  • Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing
  • Authors must avoid the plagiarism, and they are encouraged to check the plagiarism with similarity check software. Editors will check the similarity index with Turnitin. ICONPO only accept manuscripts with similarity index less than 15%.
  • The research manuscripts submitted to this conference will be peer-reviewed at least 2 (two) reviewers. Double-blind review is applied, where authors or reviewers’ identities are kept confidential. Final decision of the submitted manuscript is made by Editor based on reviewers’ critical comments.

Quality Criteria

  • Originality: Is the work relevant and novel?
  • Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results
  • Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published?
  • Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length?

Presentation Criteria

  • Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?
  • Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service?
  • Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear?
  • Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be removed
  • Conclusion: Does the paper contain a clear conclusion. The conclusion should summarise what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?