Peer-review policy

Focus and Scope

Silatene Journal disseminates scientific and applied research findings, as well as conceptual studies in Sociology, Political Economy, Public Policy, Public Management, Law, Anthropology, Politics, Communication, Government, Community Development, Empowerment, and Social Welfare, as well as related interdisciplinary studies.

Section Policy

Articles
- ☑ Open Submission
- ☑ Indexed
- ☑ Peer-Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Silatene Journal employs a closed peer-review system.
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two expert reviewers.
Editorial decisions (acceptance, revision, or rejection) are based on review outcomes.

Submission Requirements:

Manuscripts must be original and not concurrently submitted/published elsewhere unless officially rejected by Silatene Journal.
Authors are strongly encouraged to use plagiarism detection tools (e.g., Turnitin).
The editorial team conducts additional checks via Google Search.
Manuscripts with plagiarism indications will be rejected.

Open Access Policy

Silatene Journal provides immediate open access to support global knowledge exchange without cost barriers.

Publication Ethics

Silatene Journal adheres to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. All parties (authors, editors, reviewers) must comply with these ethical standards:

A. Author Responsibilities

Submit manuscripts based on original, accurate research.
Properly cite all references following academic writing standards.
Ensure the manuscript is plagiarism-free.
Confirm the work is not under consideration elsewhere.
Agree on contributor roles (lead/co-authors) prior to submission.
Conduct research in accordance with ethical guidelines.
Promptly notify editors of significant errors in published works.

B. Editor Responsibilities

Make publication decisions based on reviewers' evaluations.
Evaluate manuscripts impartially (regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.).
Ensure articles align with the journal's scope.
Reject manuscripts if they:
- Fall outside the journal's scope.
- Lack scientific rigor.
- Contain fundamental methodological flaws.
- Include unreasonable author refusal to revise.
Maintain confidentiality (discussions limited to authors/reviewers only).
Refrain from using unpublished manuscript data for personal research without written consent.