PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora screens and peer reviews every submission so that only valid work of high quality is published. The journal uses a double blind review model: reviewers cannot see the identities of the authors, and authors cannot see the identities of the reviewers. Subject experts judge the scientific merit and originality of each manuscript, its relevance to the social sciences and humanities, and its fit with the scope of the journal.

Overview of the Review Stages

No.	Stage	Summary	Typical time
1	Initial evaluation	Editors check scope, format, originality, and ethics.	Up to 3 weeks
2	Assignment of reviewers	Independent reviewers are invited and the manuscript is anonymized.	Within 2 weeks
3	Review	Reviewers assess the manuscript and recommend a decision.	Usually up to 8 weeks
4	Decision	The Editor in Chief decides to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript.	Averages 2 to 3 months from submission to first decision
5	Revision	Authors revise the manuscript, and the revision is checked.	2 weeks for minor revision and 4 weeks for major revision
6	Publication	The final version is copyedited, formatted, and published.	Averages 3 to 6 months from acceptance to publication

These time frames are estimates, not guarantees. Actual timing depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of review rounds. Planned issue dates are listed on the Publication Frequency page.

1. Initial Evaluation

The editor screens every submission, and this stage takes up to three weeks at most. Editors first decide whether a manuscript is ready to go to reviewers.

Scope and focus: The manuscript must match the Focus and Scope of the journal and meet its conditions for publication.
Format: The editorial office checks the formatting, the citation style, and compliance with the Author Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation instructions. Manuscripts that do not comply are returned to the authors for reformatting and resubmission.
Originality: Manuscripts are screened for similarity under the Plagiarism and Research Integrity Policy.
Ethics: For research involving participants, editors verify that permission and consent are described and that the required statements are included, as set out in the Publication Ethics policy.

A similarity score is only a screening signal and is not evidence of plagiarism. A high score triggers a review by the editor, not automatic rejection. Manuscripts that lack originality, have serious scientific flaws, or fall outside the aims and scope of the journal are rejected at this stage. In rare cases, an exceptional manuscript may be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are sent to expert reviewers.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

The assigned editor invites two to three independent experts with relevant research experience. Reviewers should be from institutions other than that of the corresponding author. Reviewers accept or decline an invitation based on their expertise, their availability, and any conflicts of interest. The aim is to assign reviewers within two weeks. Current reviewers are listed on the Reviewer Board page.

2.1 Anonymity

Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editorial office removes the author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and author contribution statements. These items are placed in a separate title page file that reviewers do not receive. The acknowledgements section also contains the funding and competing interest statements, which editors keep for their own use. The office also removes personal metadata from the file.

2.2 Conflicts of Interest

A reviewer or an editor who has a conflict of interest must decline the invitation or stay out of the decision, as described in the Conflicts of Interest policy. A manuscript submitted by an editor or a member of the editorial board is handled by an editor who is not involved with it, and that author takes no part in its evaluation or decision.

2.3 Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers who are not yet reviewers can register through the Call for Reviewer form. The benefits include early access to recent work in the field, acknowledgement in the list of reviewers, and the possibility of citing review work for professional development. Reviewers are unpaid volunteers, and the journal thanks them for their effort and suggestions.

3. Review

Reviewers assess the scientific soundness, originality, validity, and relevance of a manuscript, and whether it duplicates published research. A review usually takes up to eight weeks. Feedback should be constructive, and reviewers recommend that the manuscript be accepted, revised, or rejected. Reviewers are not asked to correct or copyedit a manuscript, because language correction is not part of peer review. If the first round of review is inadequate, additional review rounds are held. The table below lists the main review questions, which follow the structure of the article template.

Manuscript part	Reviewer questions
Title and abstract	Do the title and abstract describe the study accurately, and do the abstract and keywords make its contribution clear?
Introduction	Are the background, state of the art, knowledge gap, novelty, and research question or objective clear?
Research Method	Are the design, participants, instruments, and analysis appropriate and described in enough detail to be repeated? Are the validity and reliability of the instruments explained? Are participant permission and consent described?
Results and Discussion	Are the results correct and clearly presented? Does the discussion connect the findings to earlier research and theory, and explain their theoretical and practical implications?
Conclusion	Is the conclusion supported by the results, and does it answer the research question?
References	Are the references accurate, current, and correctly styled, and 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 concerns?

Reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential and must not upload them to generative AI tools. They may use such tools only to improve the language of their own report, as described on the Generative AI Policies page.

4. Decision

The Editor in Chief makes the final decision based on the comments of the reviewers and the conditions for publication, and may consult members of the Editorial Board when needed. If the reviewers' comments differ significantly, the academic editor may invite an additional reviewer before deciding. The possible decisions are listed below.

Decision	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript goes to copyediting and publication.
Minor revision	Small changes are needed. Authors have 2 weeks.
Major revision	Substantial changes are needed. Authors have 4 weeks.
Reject	The manuscript is not accepted for publication in SOSMANIORA.

Decisions and reviewer comments are sent through the online system, and reviewer comments remain anonymous. Fees never affect decisions, which rest on quality and relevance, as described on the Publication Ethics page. Information about charges is available on the Author Fees page.

5. Revision Process

Manuscripts accepted with revisions must be revised and resubmitted. Authors normally have two weeks for minor revisions and four weeks for major revisions. A resubmission must include two items:

The revised manuscript, with the changes highlighted.
A rebuttal letter that answers each comment and explains each change, or explains why a comment was not implemented.

Major revisions normally return to the same reviewers for a second round, to confirm that their comments have been addressed. For minor revisions, another review is optional. Authors must inform the editors before the deadline if they need more time.

6. Complaints and Appeals

Authors who believe that a decision was mistaken or that a review was unfair may email the editorial office at jurnal.sosmaniora@gmail.com, with a subject line in the form "Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier]". The letter should explain the reasons clearly, provide evidence, and address the specific points of the decision. Disagreement alone is not grounds for reconsideration.

An editor who was not involved in the original decision reviews the appeal and may seek an additional opinion. The outcome of the appeal is final, and a manuscript may be appealed only once. Concerns about misconduct in the review process follow the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

7. Publication

After acceptance, authors submit the final version of the manuscript. It is copyedited and formatted for publication. Changes after publication follow the Correction and Retraction policy. Scholarly comments follow the Post Publication Discussion procedure.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Peer Review

SOSMANIORA is committed to high standards of publication ethics and to preventing malpractice in peer review. The full duties of editors and reviewers are set out in the Publication Ethics policy. The main commitments are listed below.

Commitment	Meaning
Confidentiality	Information about manuscripts and reviews is strictly confidential and must not be disclosed by editors, reviewers, or others involved.
Objectivity and impartiality	Reviews are based on merit, free from personal bias and conflicts of interest, and offer constructive feedback.
Timeliness	Reviews are completed within a reasonable time, and authors are informed promptly about the status of their manuscripts.
Transparency and accountability	Reviewers give clear and reasoned comments, and editors decide fairly based on those comments and their own expertise.
Conflicts of interest	Editors and reviewers declare potential conflicts, and the journal takes steps to keep the evaluation unbiased.
Plagiarism and misconduct	Editors and reviewers watch for plagiarism, data fabrication, and other misconduct, and report suspected cases promptly under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.
Recognition of reviewers	The journal recognizes and appropriately credits the contributions and expertise of its reviewers.