Review Process Policy
Review Process Policy
Humanika: Kajian Ilmiah Mata Kuliah Umum
Humanika: Kajian Ilmiah Mata Kuliah Umum applies a double-blind peer review process to scholarly manuscripts submitted for publication. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. The policy aims to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of originality, academic quality, methodological rigor, research ethics, and relevance to the journal's scope.
The review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of fairness, confidentiality, independence, transparency, and constructive academic evaluation, informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices.
01. Principles of Peer Review
- Double anonymity: Authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities during the review process. Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts do not contain identifying information.
- Editorial independence: Decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity, without discrimination or inappropriate influence.
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications must be treated as confidential.
- Constructive evaluation: Reviewers are expected to provide objective, specific, evidence-based, and respectful feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts.
- Editorial accountability: Reviewers provide recommendations, while the editor-in-chief or an authorized editor makes the final publication decision.
02. Step-by-Step Review Process
1
Submission and Acknowledgement
Authors submit their manuscripts and supporting documents through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) submission platform. The editorial office checks the submission and records it for further processing.
2
Initial Editorial Screening
The editor assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal's focus and scope, follows the author guidelines and manuscript template, meets basic academic standards, and complies with publication ethics requirements. Similarity screening may be conducted to identify potential plagiarism or redundant publication.
A manuscript may be sent for peer review, returned to the author for technical corrections, or rejected at this stage if it falls outside the journal's scope, fails to meet minimum quality requirements, or raises serious ethical concerns.
3
Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area or research methodology. Reviewers are selected based on their qualifications, experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.
4
Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's originality, relevance, theoretical foundation, literature review, research design, methods, analysis, findings, discussion, conclusions, presentation, and ethical compliance. They provide comments to the authors and recommendations to the editor.
5
Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's assessment, the manuscript may be accepted, accepted subject to minor revisions, returned for major revisions, or rejected. If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review before making a decision.
6
Manuscript Revision
Authors must revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' comments and editorial decision. A revised manuscript should be accompanied by a response explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing a reasoned explanation when a suggested change is not adopted.
7
Re-review and Final Decision
Revised manuscripts may be examined by the editor or returned to the original reviewers, depending on the extent of the revisions required. The editor-in-chief or authorized editor makes the final decision after considering the revised manuscript and the review recommendations.
8
Copyediting and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, author proofreading, layout, and publication. The final article is published online with its bibliographic information and DOI, where applicable.
03. Review Criteria
Reviewers are expected to assess the following aspects:
- Relevance and contribution to the journal's scope.
- Originality, novelty, and clarity of the research problem.
- Quality and relevance of the theoretical framework and literature review.
- Appropriateness and transparency of the research design, methods, data, and analysis.
- Clarity, validity, and adequacy of the results and supporting evidence.
- Depth of discussion and engagement with relevant scholarship.
- Consistency of the conclusions with the research objectives and findings.
- Academic writing, organization, references, and compliance with the journal template.
- Research ethics, originality, data integrity, and potential conflicts of interest.
04. Review Decisions
05. Responsibilities of Reviewers and Editors
Reviewers
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and within their area of expertise.
- Declare any actual or potential conflict of interest.
- Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials.
- Provide constructive comments supported by scholarly reasoning.
- Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or ethical concerns.
Editors
- Ensure a fair, confidential, and appropriately timely review process.
- Select qualified reviewers who have no relevant conflicts of interest.
- Base editorial decisions on scholarly merit, reviewer advice, journal scope, and publication ethics.
- Communicate decisions and revision requirements clearly to authors.
Ethical Guidelines
The journal's peer review practices are informed by the following resources:
Editorial Note
The peer review process is designed to support academic quality and responsible scholarly communication. The editorial team retains responsibility for all publication decisions.
Humanika: Kajian Ilmiah Mata Kuliah Umum · Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
