Peer Review Process

Indonesian Journal of Socio-Cultural Learning (IJSL) applies a double-anonymous peer review process to scholarly manuscripts submitted for publication. Under this model, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, while the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.

Peer review is intended to provide independent scholarly assessment of the originality, relevance, theoretical contribution, methodological soundness, analytical quality, and overall suitability of a manuscript for publication in IJSL. All research articles, theoretical and conceptual papers, systematic literature reviews, and other scholarly manuscripts designated as peer-reviewed content undergo external review before an editorial decision on publication is made.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor before external peer review.

At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for its:

  • relevance to the aims and scope of IJSL;

  • general scholarly contribution;

  • conformity with the journal's submission requirements;

  • adequacy of its academic structure and presentation;

  • basic theoretical and methodological suitability; and

  • readiness for independent peer review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, insufficiently developed for scholarly evaluation, or otherwise unsuitable for IJSL may be declined without external peer review.

Passing the initial editorial screening does not imply or guarantee eventual acceptance.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area, theoretical perspective, methodological approach, or disciplinary context of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected by the handling editor based on their academic expertise and suitability for evaluating the particular submission. Reviewers should be independent of the authors and should not have relationships or interests that could reasonably compromise the impartiality of their assessment.

IJSL may consider reviewers suggested by authors, but the journal is not obliged to invite them. The final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the editorial team.

Authors may also identify individuals whom they believe should not review their manuscript and provide a reasonable justification. Such requests may be considered by the editor but do not bind the journal.

3. Double-Anonymous Review

IJSL uses a double-anonymous review model. Authors should therefore prepare the manuscript so that directly identifying information is removed from the version provided to reviewers.

The journal will take reasonable measures to maintain anonymity throughout the review process. However, absolute anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly where authorship may be inferred from specialized research settings, previously disseminated work, distinctive datasets, preprints, or other contextual information.

If a reviewer believes that the identity of an author has become apparent and that this creates a potential competing interest, the reviewer should inform the handling editor.

4. Scope of Peer Review

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript as a scholarly contribution rather than merely as a technical document. Depending on the type of submission, reviewers may consider:

  • originality and significance of the research problem;

  • relevance to socio-cultural learning and the scope of IJSL;

  • clarity of research objectives or questions;

  • adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • appropriateness of the research design and methodology;

  • quality and transparency of data collection and analysis;

  • correspondence between evidence, interpretation, and conclusions;

  • engagement with relevant scholarly literature;

  • analytical depth and contextual sensitivity;

  • contribution to existing knowledge;

  • clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript; and

  • limitations and implications of the study.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, constructive, and academically reasoned comments that assist both the editor in reaching a decision and the authors in improving the manuscript.

Detailed ethical responsibilities of reviewers are governed by IJSL's Publication Ethics and other applicable journal policies.

5. Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials that are integral to the interpretation, verification, or evaluation of a manuscript may be made available to reviewers and considered as part of the peer-review process.

Authors remain responsible for ensuring that supplementary materials submitted for review are complete, appropriately anonymized where required, and consistent with the manuscript.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Following assessment, reviewers submit a written report and normally provide one of the following recommendations:

Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

Minor Revision – The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication but requires limited revisions that do not substantially change its central argument, methodology, or findings.

Major Revision – The manuscript demonstrates scholarly potential but requires substantial revisions to its theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, interpretation, organization, or other significant components.

Reject – The manuscript has substantive limitations that make it unsuitable for publication in its current form or that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than determinative. The final decision is made by the responsible editor after consideration of the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and the journal's editorial criteria.

7. Divergent Reviewer Assessments

Reviewers may reach different conclusions about the same manuscript. Editorial decisions are therefore not determined simply by counting reviewer recommendations.

When reviewer assessments differ substantially, the handling editor evaluates the scholarly reasoning underlying each report. The editor may:

  • reach a decision based on the available reports;

  • request clarification from one or more reviewers;

  • invite an additional independent reviewer; or

  • seek specialist advice on a particular theoretical, methodological, or disciplinary issue.

The purpose of an additional review is to resolve substantive uncertainty rather than to obtain a predetermined outcome.

8. Revision

When revision is requested, authors should respond systematically to the comments provided by reviewers and editors.

A revised submission should normally include:

  1. a revised manuscript; and

  2. a point-by-point response explaining how substantive comments have been addressed.

Authors may disagree with reviewer recommendations when there is a legitimate scholarly reason for doing so. In such cases, the response should clearly explain the reason for not making the requested change and, where appropriate, provide supporting evidence or methodological justification.

A request for revision does not constitute acceptance of the manuscript.

9. Review of Revised Manuscripts

A revised manuscript may be evaluated by the handling editor or returned to the original reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the requested revisions.

Major revisions will normally receive closer reassessment and may be returned to external reviewers. Minor revisions may be assessed editorially when the requested changes can be adequately verified by the handling editor.

Additional rounds of revision may be requested when necessary. IJSL seeks to avoid unnecessary cycles of review while ensuring that substantive scholarly concerns are adequately resolved before publication.

10. Editorial Decision

Following peer review and any required revisions, the handling editor assesses the complete editorial record and makes a decision or recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

Final decisions may include:

  • Accept for Publication

  • Revision Required

  • Resubmit for Review, where substantial redevelopment is necessary and further external evaluation is appropriate; or

  • Reject

The Editor-in-Chief retains ultimate responsibility for the final publication decision.

Editorial decisions are based on the overall scholarly quality and contribution of the manuscript rather than solely on individual reviewer recommendations.

11. Review Reports and Reviewer Identity

Reviewer reports are communicated to authors in anonymous form unless exceptional circumstances require otherwise.

IJSL does not routinely publish peer-review reports alongside articles, and reviewer identities are not disclosed as part of the journal's standard double-anonymous review process.

Reviewer identities and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential editorial information.

12. Editorial Board Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by editors, Editorial Board members, or individuals directly associated with IJSL are subject to the same scholarly evaluation requirements as other submissions.

The submitting editor or Editorial Board member will have no role in selecting reviewers, accessing confidential reviewer identities, managing the review, or making the editorial decision concerning their own manuscript.

Such submissions are assigned to another qualified editor to preserve the independence of the review process.

13. Special Issues and Thematic Collections

Articles submitted to special issues, thematic collections, or other specially commissioned sections are subject to the same standards of scholarly review as regular submissions unless a different editorial status is explicitly identified.

Guest editors, where appointed, must follow IJSL's peer-review procedures. Final responsibility for maintaining the journal's editorial standards remains with the Editor-in-Chief.

Invitation to contribute to a special issue does not guarantee publication.

14. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual misunderstanding or material procedural error may submit an appeal in accordance with IJSL's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal is not intended to provide an automatic additional round of peer review merely because the author disagrees with the reviewers' evaluation.

15. Ethical Concerns Identified During Review

If questions concerning research or publication integrity arise during peer review, the normal review process may be paused while the matter is assessed under IJSL's Publication Ethics and relevant specific policies.

Reviewers should communicate such concerns confidentially to the handling editor rather than contacting authors directly or conducting independent investigations.

Issues involving Generative AI are handled according to the Generative AI Policy, while post-publication concerns are governed by the Retraction and Correction Policy.

16. Editorial Timeline

IJSL is committed to conducting peer review as efficiently as possible while maintaining the quality and independence of scholarly evaluation. The journal does not guarantee acceptance or unrealistically short review times.

Where significant delays occur, the editorial office should communicate relevant information to the corresponding author. Authors retain the right to request withdrawal of their manuscript in accordance with the journal's submission and withdrawal procedures.

17. Transparency of the Review Process

Published research articles should, where supported by the journal's publishing platform and metadata system, display relevant publication-history information such as the dates of submission, acceptance, and publication.

Any article or content type that does not undergo the journal's standard peer-review procedure must be clearly identified so that readers are not misled regarding its editorial status.

In summary, scholarly manuscripts submitted to Indonesian Journal of Socio-Cultural Learning (IJSL) undergo initial editorial screening followed by double-anonymous evaluation by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the final decision, which remains the responsibility of the journal's editorial leadership.