Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

TAUTAN: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora applies a double-blind peer-review system. Every manuscript submitted for publication is subject to peer review by at least two qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the academic quality, originality, validity, and suitability of a manuscript for publication. This process helps maintain scholarly standards and ensures the credibility of published research.

The peer-review process consists of nine stages, as described below.

1. Submission of Manuscript

The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript through the journal's online submission system, which is managed using the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Authors are required to follow the journal's submission procedures and Author Guidelines. Any alternative submission method, such as submission by email, may be used only when explicitly authorized by the editorial office.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The submitted manuscript is initially assessed by the editorial office to determine whether it falls within the focus and scope of the journal. The editor checks the manuscript's structure, formatting, completeness, and compliance with the Author Guidelines. An initial assessment of academic quality is also conducted to identify major methodological weaknesses or other issues that may prevent the manuscript from proceeding to peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are screened for text similarity using Turnitin or another appropriate similarity-checking tool. The similarity report is evaluated by the editor to identify potential plagiarism or inappropriate reuse of published material. A similarity score alone does not determine whether plagiarism has occurred.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, academically significant, and potentially valuable to its readers. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's standards or are outside its scope may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external review.

4. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor invites qualified reviewers based on their subject expertise, research interests, academic competence, availability, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest. Reviewers are selected to provide an informed and impartial assessment of the manuscript.

The journal applies a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. Manuscripts are therefore prepared and sent to reviewers without identifying information about the authors, in accordance with the journal's review procedures.

5. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation in relation to their expertise, availability, and any possible conflicts of interest. They may accept or decline the invitation. Reviewers who decline may, where appropriate, recommend alternative qualified reviewers to the editor.

6. Review Is Conducted

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript carefully and provide a constructive, objective, and evidence-based assessment. They consider the manuscript's originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, accuracy of analysis, relevance to the journal's scope, quality of presentation, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

Reviewers submit their reports and recommendations to the editor. Recommendations may include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial changes.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or improvements.
  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes before it can be reconsidered.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements.

7. Evaluation of Reviews and Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief and the handling editor carefully evaluate the reviewers' reports and recommendations before making an editorial decision. If reviewers provide substantially different assessments, the editor may seek an additional review to support a fair and well-informed decision.

The peer-review process typically takes approximately 2–10 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of any required revisions. The actual duration may vary.

Editorial Decisions

  1. Accept (Accept Submission)

    The manuscript is accepted in its current form or with only the final technical adjustments specified by the editorial team. The author is notified and may be asked to submit the final version within the deadline provided by the journal before copyediting and publication.

  2. Accept with Revisions (Revision Required)

    The manuscript may be reconsidered for acceptance after the author completes the required minor or major revisions. The author must address the reviewers' comments systematically and submit a revised manuscript together with a response to the comments. The editor, and reviewers where necessary, will assess whether the revisions adequately address the concerns raised.

  3. Resubmit for Review

    The manuscript requires substantial further development before it can be considered for publication. The editor may invite the author to submit a substantially revised version, which may be treated as a new submission and undergo a further round of peer review.

  4. Reject

    The manuscript is not suitable for publication because it does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements. The editorial decision is communicated to the author, normally with the relevant reviewers' comments where available. A rejected manuscript is not automatically eligible for resubmission.

8. Communication of the Decision

The editor communicates the editorial decision to the corresponding author through the journal's submission system or official email. Where applicable, the decision includes anonymized reviewers' comments and instructions for revision. Authors are expected to respond to the comments professionally and provide a clear explanation of the changes made or the reasons for not adopting particular suggestions.

Reviewers may also be informed of the outcome of the review, in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures.

9. Final Steps and Publication

Once a manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copyediting, proofreading, and typesetting as required. The editorial team may make language and formatting adjustments to ensure consistency with the journal's publication standards while preserving the author's intended meaning.

If revisions are required, the author must revise the manuscript in accordance with the editor's and reviewers' comments and resubmit it within the specified deadline. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, unless they are unavailable or have declined further participation. For manuscripts requiring only minor changes, the handling editor may assess the revisions directly.

The manuscript is accepted for publication once the editor is satisfied that the required revisions have been completed and the manuscript meets the journal's standards. Accepted articles are published online and made available to readers as downloadable PDF files, subject to the journal's access and licensing policies.