PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Sosiologi, Antropologi, dan Budaya Nusantara undergo editorial screening and peer review. The journal uses a double blind review model, in which the identities of the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other. Experts evaluate each manuscript for its scholarly merit, originality, relevance to sociology, anthropology, and Indonesian culture (Nusantara), and fit with the focus and scope of the journal. Publication depends solely on the scientific validity and coherence of the work, as judged by the editors and the reviewers.

Overview of the Process

Stage	What Happens	Typical Time
1. Initial Evaluation	The editors check scope, format, originality, and ethics.	Up to 3 weeks after submission
2. Assignment of Reviewers	Reviewers are invited, and the manuscript is anonymized.	The journal aims to assign reviewers within 2 weeks
3. Review	Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend a decision.	Reviewers normally have 2 weeks. The review stage usually takes up to 8 weeks in total.
4. Decision	The Editor in Chief decides to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript.	About 2 to 3 months from submission
5. Revision	Authors revise the manuscript, and the revision is checked.	2 weeks for minor revision, 4 weeks for major revision
6. Publication	The final version is copyedited, formatted, and published.	In the next suitable issue (April, August, or December)

The times shown are estimates rather than guarantees. The scheduled issue months are listed on the Publication Frequency page.

1. Initial Evaluation

The editors first decide whether a manuscript can be sent to reviewers. The following points are checked.

Check	What the Editors Look At
Scope and Focus	The manuscript must fit the focus and scope of SABANA and meet the conditions for publication.
Format	The editorial office checks the citation style and compliance with the Author Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation pages. Manuscripts that do not comply are returned to the authors.
Originality	The manuscript is screened for similarity in line with the Plagiarism Policy.
Ethics	For research involving human participants or communities, permission and informed consent must be described, in line with the Publication Ethics policy.

Please note: A similarity result is a screening signal, not proof of plagiarism. A high result leads to a review by the editors and does not lead to automatic rejection.

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage if it lacks sufficient originality, contains serious scientific flaws, or falls outside the aims and scope of the journal. Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are sent to expert reviewers.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

At least two independent experts are invited to review each manuscript, and a manuscript typically receives two to three reviews. Reviewers should come from institutions different from that of the corresponding author. Each reviewer accepts or declines the invitation on the basis of expertise, availability, and any conflict of interest. The journal aims to assign reviewers within two weeks. Reviewers are listed on the Reviewer Board page.

2.1 Anonymity

The editorial office removes author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and contribution statements from the manuscript. This information is kept in a separate title page file that reviewers do not receive. Funding and competing interest statements remain with the editors, and personal information in the file properties is removed.

2.2 Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers who have a conflict of interest must decline or abstain, as set out in the Conflicts of Interest policy. Manuscripts submitted by editors or members of the editorial board are handled by an editor who has no involvement with the submission, and the author takes no part in the evaluation.

3. Review

Reviewers assess the scientific quality, originality, validity, and relevance of the manuscript and give constructive feedback. They recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Reviewers are normally given two weeks to complete a report, and the editorial office may grant an extension on request. Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts.

Part of the Manuscript	Questions for the Reviewer
Title and Abstract	Does the title describe the study accurately? Do the abstract and keywords show the contribution of the work?
Introduction	Are the background, the review of earlier studies, the knowledge gap, the novelty, and the research question or objective clearly stated?
Research Method	Is the research approach appropriate and clearly described? Are data collection and analysis transparent? Are permission and informed consent described?
Results and Discussion	Are the findings accurate and clearly presented? Are they connected to earlier research and to sociological, anthropological, or cultural theory?
Conclusion	Is the conclusion supported by the findings, and does it answer the research question?
References	Are the references accurate, current, and in the required style? Do they include relevant earlier work?
Ethics and Integrity	Are there signs of plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed use of generative AI, or other ethical concerns?

Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential and must not upload them to generative AI tools. Such tools may be used only to improve the language of the reviewer's own report, as set out in the Generative AI Policies policy.

4. Decision

The Editor in Chief makes the final decision on the basis of the reviewers' comments and the conditions for publication. Where necessary, the Editor in Chief may consult the Editorial Board. If the reviewers disagree significantly, an additional reviewer may be invited.

Decision	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript proceeds to copyediting and publication.
Minor Revision	Small changes are required. Authors normally have 2 weeks to revise.
Major Revision	Substantial changes are required. Authors normally have 4 weeks to revise.
Reject	The manuscript is not accepted for publication in SABANA.

Decisions and anonymous reviewer comments are sent to the authors through the online system. Fees never influence editorial decisions. Information about charges is available on the Author Fees page.

5. Revision Process

A manuscript that is accepted subject to revision must be resubmitted. Authors normally have two weeks for a minor revision and four weeks for a major revision. Each resubmission should include the following items.

Item	Description
Revised Manuscript	The revised manuscript, with all changes highlighted.
Rebuttal Letter	A letter that answers each reviewer comment, or explains why a comment was not followed.

Major revisions normally return to the same reviewers, while a further review of minor revisions is optional. Authors who need more time must inform the editors before the deadline.

6. Complaints and Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal a decision may write to sabanajurnal@gmail.com with the subject line Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier]. The letter must give clear reasons and evidence and must address the specific points of the decision. Disagreement alone is not a ground for reconsideration. An editor who has no involvement with the manuscript reviews the appeal and may seek another opinion. The outcome of the appeal is final, and a manuscript may be appealed only once. Concerns about misconduct are handled under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

7. Publication

After acceptance, authors submit the final version of the manuscript, which is copyedited and formatted by the editorial office. Changes made after publication follow the Correction and Retraction policy, and scholarly comments on published articles follow the journal's procedure for post publication discussion.

Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers who wish to review for SABANA are welcome to complete the Call for Reviewer form. Reviewers are volunteers, and no financial payment is made.

Benefit	Description
Early Access	Reviewers see recent work in their field before it is published.
Acknowledgement	Reviewers are acknowledged in the reviewer list on the Reviewer Board page.
Professional Development	The contribution of a reviewer may be cited as part of professional development.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Peer Review

SABANA is committed to publication ethics and to preventing malpractice in peer review. The full duties of authors, editors, and reviewers are set out in the Publication Ethics policy.

Commitment	What It Means
Confidentiality	Information about manuscripts and reviews remains private for editors, reviewers, and all others involved.
Objectivity and Impartiality	Reviews are based on merit, free from bias, and constructive.
Timeliness	Reviews are completed in good time, and authors are kept informed of progress.
Transparency and Accountability	Reviewers give reasoned comments, and editors make fair decisions.
Conflicts of Interest	Editors and reviewers declare conflicts of interest, and the journal takes steps to keep the review unbiased.
Plagiarism and Misconduct	Suspected cases are reported promptly and handled under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.
Recognition of Reviewers	The contributions of reviewers are acknowledged.

Page	Link
Author Guidelines	View the Author Guidelines
Manuscript Preparation	View the Manuscript Preparation page
Publication Frequency	View the Publication Frequency page
Reviewer Board	View the Reviewer Board
Generative AI Policies	View the Generative AI Policies