Peer Review Process
Peer-Review Process
Overview
Khazanah Sosial applies a rigorous and transparent double-anonymous peer-review process to evaluate manuscripts submitted for publication. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.
Manuscripts are evaluated by qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject of the manuscript. The review process considers the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, theoretical foundation, methodological rigor, quality of findings, discussion, contribution to social science scholarship, and quality of references.
The journal normally seeks evaluations from at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary, particularly when reviewers' recommendations substantially differ or additional expertise is required.
Peer-Review Model
| Review Element | Policy |
|---|---|
| Review Model | Double-anonymous peer review |
| Number of Reviewers | Normally at least two independent reviewers |
| Reviewer Selection | Based on expertise, relevance to the manuscript, and absence of conflicts of interest |
| Reviewer Identity | Confidential to the authors |
| Author Identity | Confidential to reviewers |
Peer-Review Workflow
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. Submissions must comply with the journal's Author Guidelines and publication ethics requirements.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
The editorial team checks the manuscript's compliance with the journal's focus and scope, structural and formatting requirements, completeness of submission files, ethical requirements, and potential plagiarism or publication-misconduct concerns.
Target time: 3–7 days.
3. Editorial Assessment
The editor assesses the manuscript's suitability for the journal's academic scope and whether it is sufficiently developed to proceed to external peer review.
Target time: 3–7 days.
4. Reviewer Selection and Invitation
Appropriate reviewers are selected according to their academic expertise and relevance to the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to disclose potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment.
Target time: 7–14 days.
5. Double-Anonymous Peer Review
Assigned reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript's academic quality, originality, theoretical foundation, methodology, findings, discussion, contribution to social science scholarship, and references.
Target peer-review period: 21–60 days.
The review period may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the need to identify replacement reviewers, and the need for additional expert evaluation.
6. Editorial Decision
After the required reviewer reports have been received, the editor evaluates the recommendations and makes an editorial decision.
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject and Resubmit
- Reject
Target time: 5–10 days after completion of the required review process.
7. Author Revision
When revision is required, authors must respond to reviewer and editorial comments and submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the comments.
Recommended revision period: 14–30 days.
Authors may request an extension when additional time is reasonably required to complete substantial revisions.
8. Second Review or Revision Assessment
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.
Target time: 14–30 days when a second review is required.
9. Final Editorial Decision
Following completion of the required review and revision process, the editor makes the final publication decision.
Target time: 5–10 days.
10. Copyediting and Production
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, metadata verification, DOI preparation, formatting, and other publication-production procedures.
Target time: 7–21 days.
11. Issue Allocation and Publication
After completing production, an accepted article is considered for issue allocation according to the journal's publication schedule, production readiness, and available publication capacity. Acceptance does not automatically guarantee publication in the immediately following issue.
Review and Publication Timeline
The following periods are targets intended to provide transparency to authors. They are not guaranteed deadlines. Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, revisions, and editorial requirements.
| Process | Target Time |
|---|---|
| Initial Editorial Screening | 3–7 days |
| Editorial Assessment | 3–7 days |
| Reviewer Selection and Invitation | 7–14 days |
| Peer Review | 21–60 days |
| Editorial Decision | 5–10 days |
| Author Revision | 14–30 days |
| Second Review, when required | 14–30 days |
| Final Editorial Decision | 5–10 days |
| Copyediting and Production | 7–21 days |
| Issue Allocation | According to publication schedule and capacity |
Important Information for Authors
Acceptance and issue assignment are separate editorial processes.
After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to production. Its final issue assignment depends on production readiness, available publication capacity, and the journal's publication schedule.
Core Review Criteria
| Criteria | Review Consideration |
|---|---|
| Scope and Relevance | Alignment with the journal's focus on social sciences, sociology, politics, and related fields within its stated scope. |
| Originality | Originality and significance of the research contribution. |
| Research Problem | Clarity and relevance of the research problem, objectives, and research questions. |
| Literature | Quality, relevance, currency, and critical engagement with scholarly literature. |
| Methodology | Appropriateness, rigor, transparency, and adequacy of the research methods. |
| Findings | Clarity, validity, and evidentiary support of the findings. |
| Discussion | Strength of interpretation and connection between findings, theory, literature, and research questions. |
| Contribution | Academic, theoretical, methodological, policy, or practical contribution to social science scholarship. |
| References | Accuracy, relevance, quality, currency, and appropriate use of scholarly references. |
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Accept review assignments only when they have appropriate expertise.
- Declare any potential conflict of interest.
- Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript.
- Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments.
- Avoid personal or discriminatory comments.
- Identify relevant literature that may have been overlooked, where appropriate.
- Alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other research misconduct.
- Complete the review within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor when an extension is required.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, professional, personal, or other relationship that could reasonably affect their objectivity. Editors may replace reviewers when a conflict of interest could compromise the independence of the review.
Confidentiality and Research Integrity
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
Any concern regarding plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, or other forms of publication misconduct should be reported to the editor.
Generative AI in Peer Review
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. Manuscript content, unpublished data, confidential reviewer materials, or other privileged information must not be uploaded to generative AI systems or external AI services where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Reviewers remain responsible for the substance and confidentiality of their reviews and must exercise independent academic judgment.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual error, procedural problem, conflict of interest, or serious misunderstanding has affected the decision.
Appeals should provide a clear and reasoned explanation and, where appropriate, supporting evidence. Appeals are considered by the editorial team independently from the original decision-making process where feasible.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, and contribution of the manuscript. Decisions should not be influenced by the author's institutional affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, political position, personal relationships, or commercial considerations.
Khazanah Sosial
Social Sciences, Sociology, and Politics
UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung