Current issueNot yet available
Peer Review Policy
In this policy
01 Purpose and scope
Peer review at Jurnal Perspektif Sosiologi Indonesia 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 Reviewers must not use unpublished findings for personal advantage or share manuscripts with unapproved third parties.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 arrangements
Journal-specific arrangements have not yet been supplied. Contact the editorial office for verified information.
Questions or concerns about this policy?
Explain the issue and include a manuscript or article identifier where relevant. Do not share sensitive records through public channels.
Contact the editorial office →References and related guidance
Read alongside the journal’s review, complaints, AI, copyright, charges and preservation policies. Those arrangements must reflect actual practice.
- COPE: Peer review processes
- COPE: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
- Principles of Transparency and Best Practice
References provide guidance; they do not assert membership, certification or endorsement of the journal by those organisations.