Peer Review Policy

In this policy

Purpose and scope
Initial editorial assessment
Reviewer selection and impartiality
Reports and author revisions
Decision and timing
Confidentiality and appeals
Journal-specific provisions — retained content

01 Purpose and scope

Peer review at Jurnal Sosiologi Agama Indonesia (JSAI) supports editorial assessment of a submission’s contribution, soundness and clarity. The confirmed arrangements below state the review model and any exceptions. This general description does not itself establish that every content type receives external review. Authors should consult those arrangements and the author guidelines before preparing their submission.

02 Initial editorial assessment

The editorial office checks completeness and routes the submission for assessment of scope, relevance and ethical concerns. A manuscript may be returned for missing information or declined before external review when it is unsuitable. Authors receive an editorial communication about the outcome. Passing an initial check is not acceptance and does not waive later assessment of research integrity.

03 Reviewer selection and impartiality

Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise and ability to provide an independent assessment. They disclose conflicts and decline work they cannot fairly assess. Author suggestions may inform selection but do not bind the editor. Special issues and submissions involving editorial staff need arrangements that separate interested parties from reviewer selection and the final decision.

04 Reports and author revisions

Reports should identify strengths, limitations and changes needed, with reasons proportionate to the claims. Personal criticism and requests for irrelevant citations are inappropriate. Authors respond to substantive comments and identify revisions or explain disagreements. The editor may request clarification, further revision or additional review; the number of rounds depends on the issues that remain unresolved.

05 Decision and timing

The responsible editor considers the manuscript, reports and responses before issuing a reasoned decision. Reviewers advise; their recommendations are not votes that automatically determine acceptance. Published processing statistics describe past cases, not a promised deadline for a new submission. Authors may ask about progress and receive information on material delays or request withdrawal through the editorial office.

06 Confidentiality and appeals

Review material is handled confidentially according to the confirmed model. Reviewers must not use unpublished findings for personal advantage or share manuscripts with unapproved third parties. The journal’s AI policy also applies to review work. Authors may appeal on factual or procedural grounds using the complaints route; acceptance and successful appeal are never guaranteed.

07 Journal-specific provisions — retained content

Jurnal Sosiologi Agama Indonesia (JSAI) applies a double-anonymized peer-review process. The identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors during the evaluation process.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Peer review assists the editors in assessing the manuscript’s originality, academic contribution, theoretical foundation, methodological rigor, evidential adequacy, analytical quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

Editorial and Review Stages

No.	Stage	Assessment
1	Administrative Check	Completeness of submission, author information, anonymized manuscript, required declarations, file format, and compliance with technical requirements.
2	Editorial Screening	Fit with the aims and scope, originality, academic contribution, methodology, ethical compliance, language, reference quality, and general publication readiness.
3	Similarity Screening	Evaluation of textual similarity, attribution, quotation, duplicate publication, and possible plagiarism. Similarity percentages are interpreted contextually and are not used as the sole basis for a decision.
4	External Peer Review	Independent evaluation by normally two reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.
5	Author Revision	Authors revise the manuscript and submit a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.
6	Editorial Reassessment	The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to another reviewer where necessary. When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the assigned editor will assess the reasoning and evidence contained in the reports rather than determine the outcome through a numerical vote. The editor may request clarification, seek an additional independent review, or make a reasoned editorial decision based on the manuscript, the available reports, and the journal’s academic and ethical standards.
7	Final Decision	The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor makes the final decision based on the manuscript, review reports, author response, ethical considerations, and journal policy.
8	Production	Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, reference and metadata verification, layout, proofreading, author proof approval, and online publication.

Possible Editorial Decisions

Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to final technical and production checks.
Minor Revision: the manuscript requires limited revisions that do not fundamentally change its research design, argument, or findings.
Major Revision: the manuscript requires substantial revision to its theoretical framework, method, analysis, discussion, presentation, or documentation.
Resubmit for Review: the manuscript may be reconsidered after extensive reconstruction and will undergo a new evaluation.
Decline: the manuscript is unsuitable for publication because of scope, originality, methodological, ethical, evidential, analytical, or presentation problems that cannot be adequately resolved through ordinary revision.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, methodological competence, publication record, independence, availability, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest. The journal seeks reviewers whose expertise corresponds directly to the manuscript’s topic and research design.

Reviewers should not be assigned when they have a recent collaborative, supervisory, institutional, financial, personal, or competitive relationship with an author that could reasonably affect—or appear to affect—their judgment.

Reviewers and editors must not require authors to cite publications that are irrelevant to the manuscript. Suggested references must be academically necessary and directly related to the argument, theory, method, evidence, or scholarly context of the study. Requests intended primarily to increase citations to a reviewer, editor, institution, or journal are prohibited.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence, author responses, and unpublished supporting materials are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, quote, upload, or use manuscript content for personal advantage or research purposes without authorization.

Editorial Submissions

A manuscript submitted by an editor, editorial-board member, reviewer, or person closely connected to the journal must undergo the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions. The person concerned must have no access to reviewer identities, review reports, editorial deliberations, or the final decision process. An independent editor must manage the manuscript.

Review Time

The journal seeks to complete editorial screening and peer review within a reasonable period. Review duration may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision quality, ethical inquiries, and the number of review rounds required.

Any estimated processing time is indicative and does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance or publication. JSAI does not offer paid or guaranteed expedited peer review.

Final Editorial Authority

Reviewers provide expert recommendations, but they do not make the final publication decision. Final responsibility rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor, who must consider the quality of the manuscript, the review evidence, the authors’ revisions, applicable ethical standards, and the interests of the scholarly record.