Review Process Policy

Jurnal Sosial Humaniora (JSH) is a peer-reviewed, open-access scholarly journal published by CV. Surya Buana and managed by an Editorial Team officially appointed by the publisher's leadership. JSH is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, fair, and independent peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution of published articles.

JSH adopts a double-anonymous peer-review system (double-blind peer review) , in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise.

The review process is informed by the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), emphasizing confidentiality, objectivity, research integrity, and editorial independence.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to JSH undergo an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor.

The initial screening evaluates:

  1. Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.
  2. Originality and scholarly contribution.
  3. Appropriateness of research design and methodology.
  4. Clarity of objectives, arguments, and presentation.
  5. Compliance with Author Guidelines and the manuscript template.
  6. Completeness of metadata and declarations.
  7. Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity requirements.

Manuscripts that fail to meet minimum scholarly standards, fall outside the journal's scope, or substantially violate submission requirements may be declined without external peer review (desk rejection). Eligible manuscripts proceed to peer review.

2. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

JSH implements a double-anonymous peer-review process to minimize potential bias and promote objective scholarly evaluation.

  • Author identities are concealed from reviewers.
  • Reviewer identities are concealed from authors.
  • Evaluation is based on scholarly merit rather than personal or institutional identity.
  • The Editorial Team manages reviewer assignments and protects confidential manuscript information.

Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and directly identifying information from manuscript files provided to reviewers. The Editorial Team checks anonymized review files before assignment.

Reasonable measures are taken to maintain anonymity; however, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed.

3. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts passing editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewer selection considers:

  1. Academic qualifications and expertise.
  2. Relevant research experience.
  3. Competence in the research methodology.
  4. Independence and objectivity.
  5. Absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
  6. Availability within the agreed review period.

Additional reviewers may be appointed when reviewer recommendations conflict substantially or specialized methodological assessment is required.

4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following scholarly criteria:

  • Originality and Novelty: Original findings, interpretations, theoretical contributions, or scholarly syntheses.
  • Relevance: Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope and significance of the research problem.
  • Theoretical Foundation: Appropriate conceptual frameworks and engagement with relevant literature.
  • Methodological Rigor: Appropriate research design, methods, data collection, and analytical procedures.
  • Results and Analysis: Clarity, validity, and analytical support for research findings.
  • Scholarly Contribution: Meaningful theoretical, empirical, practical, or policy implications.
  • Research Integrity: Compliance with ethical standards and responsible research practices.
  • Academic Presentation: Logical organization, clarity of writing, and appropriate scholarly references.

For systematic literature reviews, scoping reviews, and bibliometric analyses, reviewers additionally assess search strategies, selection procedures, methodological transparency, evidence synthesis, and analytical validity as appropriate to the study.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics

Reviewers must conduct their assessments professionally, objectively, constructively, and confidentially.

  1. Evaluate manuscripts fairly and objectively.
  2. Provide constructive, evidence-based comments.
  3. Maintain manuscript and review confidentiality.
  4. Disclose potential conflicts of interest.
  5. Notify editors of limitations in expertise or availability.
  6. Identify significant methodological weaknesses and unsupported claims.
  7. Report suspected research misconduct.
  8. Avoid unauthorized use of unpublished materials.
  9. Refrain from discriminatory or personal criticism.
  10. Submit review reports through OJS.

Reviewers must not disclose confidential manuscript materials to unauthorized individuals or upload unpublished materials to external AI systems without explicit editorial authorization and appropriate safeguards.

Any involvement of additional researchers in preparing a review requires prior permission from the responsible editor.

6. Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the responsible editor evaluates the reviewer reports and determines the appropriate editorial decision.

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript meets scholarly requirements and is accepted for publication.
  • Minor Revision: Limited improvements or clarifications are required before further consideration.
  • Major Revision: Substantial revisions to theory, methods, analysis, or interpretation are necessary.
  • Resubmit for Review: The revised manuscript requires further external peer review.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly or ethical requirements.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or authorized Handling Editor, based on scholarly merit, review reports, and established editorial policies.

Additional expert assessment may be requested when reviewer recommendations differ substantially or further evaluation is necessary.

7. Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

Authors receiving revision requests must submit revised manuscripts through OJS within the communicated revision deadline.

Revised submissions should include:

  1. A revised manuscript.
  2. A point-by-point response to reviewer and editorial comments.
  3. Clear explanations and locations of the changes made.
  4. Justifications for recommendations that were not adopted.

Minor revisions may be assessed by the Handling Editor. Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers.

A revision request does not guarantee manuscript acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be accepted, returned for additional revision, or declined after reassessment.

8. Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential materials.

Reviewers and editors must disclose relevant financial, professional, institutional, academic, or personal conflicts of interest. Conflicted editors must withdraw from handling the affected manuscript.

Submissions involving members of the Editorial Team or individuals associated with CV. Surya Buana must be handled by independent editors and reviewers without involvement from conflicted individuals.

Article Processing Charge payments do not influence reviewer selection, peer-review outcomes, or editorial decisions.

9. Research Integrity and Misconduct

JSH is committed to identifying and addressing potential plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, and other forms of research misconduct.

Suspected misconduct must be reported to the responsible editor. The Editorial Team may request clarification, seek supporting documentation, or suspend manuscript processing during an investigation.

Editorial actions must be based on available evidence, appropriate procedures, and the journal's Publication Ethics Policy.

10. Review Timeline and Communication

JSH aims to conduct peer review efficiently without compromising scholarly quality. Review invitations, deadlines, revision requests, and editorial decisions are managed through the OJS platform.

Reviewers are expected to complete assessments within the agreed review period. Actual review times may vary depending on reviewer availability, research complexity, required revisions, and additional assessments.

Authors may monitor submission progress through their OJS accounts. JSH does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they identify a substantive misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or significant error.

Appeals must include the manuscript details, the decision being challenged, and a clear scholarly or procedural justification.

Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor where appropriate. Additional expert advice may be requested.

An appeal does not automatically result in acceptance or an additional review round. Ethical concerns are handled under the journal's publication ethics procedures and applicable COPE guidance.

12. Transparency and Commitment to Quality

JSH applies consistent peer-review standards to manuscripts written in Bahasa Indonesia and English and to all scholarly article types accepted within its Articles section.

Reviewer assignments, review reports, revision records, and editorial decisions are documented through OJS to maintain an accountable and traceable editorial process.

JSH remains committed to improving its peer-review procedures, maintaining editorial independence, and strengthening the integrity of scholarly publishing in the social sciences and humanities.

Ethical References