Peer Reviewer
01. Initial Editorial Screening
Every manuscript submitted to Silatene: Jurnal Sosial & Humaniora is initially assessed by the Editorial Office and/or assigned Editor before being sent for external peer review.
During this stage, the manuscript is evaluated according to several essential editorial and academic criteria, including:
- conformity with the journal's Focus and Scope;
- relevance to the social sciences and humanities disciplines covered by the journal;
- originality and potential scholarly contribution;
- clarity of research objectives or research questions;
- appropriateness of research design and methodology;
- adequacy of theoretical and empirical foundations;
- overall academic writing quality;
- compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript structure;
- completeness, relevance, and quality of references;
- ethical considerations, where applicable; and
- textual similarity or potential plagiarism using appropriate similarity-detection software such as Turnitin.
Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, demonstrate serious methodological weaknesses, contain substantial ethical concerns, fail to meet minimum scholarly standards, or demonstrate an unacceptable level of textual similarity may be rejected during the editorial screening stage without being sent for external review.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment will proceed to the external peer-review stage.
02. Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation will normally be assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
- reviewers do not know the identity of the authors; and
- authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
Authors are expected to remove identifying information from the manuscript where required for anonymous review.
Reviewers are selected based on academic expertise, publication experience, methodological competence, familiarity with the research topic, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.
Where reviewer evaluations differ substantially, the Editor may appoint an additional reviewer or undertake further editorial assessment before reaching a decision.
03. Criteria for Peer Review
Reviewers are requested to provide a critical, constructive, objective, and academically responsible assessment of the manuscript.
Reviewers assess whether the manuscript presents an original argument, empirical finding, theoretical contribution, methodological contribution, policy insight, or meaningful synthesis of existing scholarship.
The manuscript should address issues relevant to the disciplinary or interdisciplinary areas covered by Silatene: Jurnal Sosial & Humaniora and contribute to ongoing academic discussions in the social sciences and humanities.
The manuscript should demonstrate appropriate engagement with relevant theories, concepts, and previous studies. The theoretical framework should be sufficiently developed and connected to the research problem and analysis.
For empirical research, reviewers assess the suitability and transparency of the research design, data sources, sampling, data collection techniques, analytical methods, validity or trustworthiness procedures, and research ethics where applicable.
Findings should be clearly presented and supported by relevant evidence. The analysis should demonstrate logical reasoning and appropriate interpretation of the data or scholarly materials.
The discussion should explain the significance of the findings, engage with relevant literature, identify similarities or differences with previous studies, and demonstrate the manuscript's scholarly contribution.
The conclusion should be consistent with the research objectives and findings and should not introduce unsupported claims.
References should be relevant, sufficiently comprehensive, academically credible, and appropriately connected to the arguments presented in the manuscript.
The manuscript should be logically organized, clearly written, academically appropriate, and understandable to readers in the relevant field.
04. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to conduct their assessment in accordance with principles of academic integrity and publication ethics.
- provide objective and constructive comments;
- evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit;
- identify significant strengths and weaknesses;
- support criticism with clear academic reasoning;
- maintain manuscript confidentiality;
- refrain from using unpublished material for personal advantage;
- disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest;
- avoid discriminatory, personal, hostile, or inappropriate comments; and
- complete the review within the period requested by the Editorial Office whenever possible.
05. Editorial Decision
Following receipt of reviewer reports, the assigned Editor evaluates the reviewers' recommendations together with the academic quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, and overall contribution of the manuscript.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than automatically binding. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor and/or Editorial Board of Silatene: Jurnal Sosial & Humaniora.
Review Outcomes
Based on the peer-review reports and editorial evaluation, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:
06. Revision Process
When revision is required, the corresponding author receives reviewer comments and editorial instructions.
- a revised version of the manuscript; and
- a structured response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
Where authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they may provide a clear and academically reasoned explanation.
Revised manuscripts should normally be resubmitted within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office. As a general guideline, manuscripts may be held for up to four weeks, unless an extension has been agreed with the Editor.
07. Review Timeline
Silatene: Jurnal Sosial & Humaniora aims to conduct editorial and peer-review procedures efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards.
Under normal circumstances, the peer-review and initial decision process is expected to take approximately 4–8 weeks.
Actual processing time may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, disciplinary specialization, revision requirements, and author responsiveness.
08. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential academic documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose information concerning a submitted manuscript to individuals who are not directly involved in the editorial and review process.
Reviewers may not share, reproduce, distribute, cite, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for their own research or personal advantage without appropriate permission.
09. Conflict of Interest
Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartial evaluation of a manuscript.
- recent or ongoing research collaboration;
- institutional relationships;
- personal or professional relationships;
- financial interests;
- academic competition; or
- other circumstances that could reasonably influence objective judgment.
10. Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, ethical integrity, and the academic contribution of the manuscript.
Commercial considerations or publication fees, where applicable, must not influence editorial or peer-review decisions.
11. Ethical Considerations During Review
If reviewers identify possible research misconduct or publication ethics concerns, including suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship, unethical research practices, manipulated citations, or undisclosed conflicts of interest, they should confidentially inform the Editor.
The Editorial Team may undertake further investigation before a final decision is issued.
12. Correspondence
All correspondence regarding submitted manuscripts should be conducted through the official journal communication channels and/or the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform of Silatene: Jurnal Sosial & Humaniora.
The corresponding author serves as the primary contact between the journal and the authors throughout the editorial, peer-review, revision, and production processes.
13. After Acceptance
Once a manuscript has been formally accepted, it proceeds to the journal's production process.
- copyediting;
- language and grammatical editing;
- reference checking;
- metadata verification;
- formatting according to journal style;
- layout editing;
- proofreading; and
- final publication preparation.
Authors will normally be provided with an opportunity to review the proof before final publication. Substantial changes at this stage require editorial approval.
14. Final Publication
A manuscript will be published only after successfully completing the required editorial screening, peer review, revision, copyediting, proofreading, and production processes.
Silatene: Jurnal Sosial & Humaniora continuously seeks to improve its peer-review procedures in order to maintain high standards of scholarly publishing, academic integrity, editorial independence, and international research quality.