Review Process Policy

Review Process Policy

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to KOMUNITAS: Jurnal Ilmu Sosiologi (COMMUNITY: Journal of Sociology) undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their relevance to the journal's aims and scope, compliance with the submission guidelines, originality, academic quality, and adherence to publication ethics. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall outside its scope may be rejected before peer review.

2. Peer Review System

The journal applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Authors must ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not directly reveal their identities, while reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they assess.

Each manuscript considered suitable for peer review is evaluated independently by at least two qualified peer reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment of the manuscript.

3. Review Criteria and Timeline

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript's originality, relevance to the journal's scope, contribution to sociological knowledge, theoretical framework, methodological appropriateness, quality of analysis, clarity of presentation, use of relevant literature, validity of conclusions, and compliance with research and publication ethics.

Each reviewer is normally given three (3) weeks to complete the review and submit comments and recommendations. If a reviewer does not respond within the specified period, the editor may send a reminder, extend the deadline when appropriate, or appoint another reviewer with equivalent expertise to avoid unnecessary delays.

4. Editorial Decision

The editorial decision is based on the reviewers' reports, the scientific merit of the manuscript, its relevance to the journal, and the editor's independent assessment. Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review or consult the editorial board before reaching a decision.

The journal applies the following editorial decisions:

  1. Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revisions.
  2. Revisions Required: The manuscript may be accepted subject to minor revisions. The author must address the editor's and reviewers' comments before the manuscript proceeds to the next stage.
  3. Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be reconsidered after resubmission. The revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review, depending on the extent of the revisions and the editor's assessment.
  4. Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected because it does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

5. Revision and Resubmission

Authors who are invited to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. If a comment is not adopted, the authors should provide a clear and academically justified explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

6. Final Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations serve as an important basis for editorial decisions but are not binding. The editor retains responsibility for the final decision, taking into account the reviewers' assessments, the journal's standards, and any relevant ethical considerations. The editorial board may be consulted when necessary.

The corresponding author will be informed of the decision through the journal's online submission system or official editorial communication channels. Reviewer comments and the reasons for the decision will be provided where appropriate to support transparency and manuscript improvement.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and must not be shared, used for personal advantage, or disclosed to unauthorized parties. Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers who identify a conflict of interest must inform the editor and, where appropriate, decline the review.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to comply with the journal's publication ethics policies. Any suspected plagiarism, research misconduct, or other ethical concern identified during peer review will be handled in accordance with the relevant journal policies.

8. Review Integrity and Editorial Independence

The journal is committed to conducting peer review fairly, impartially, and without discrimination based on the authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, or other personal characteristics. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, and ethical standards.