PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The Indonesian Social Science Review (ISSR) enforces a rigorous, double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review system. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed from one another throughout the evaluation to guarantee objective, impartial, and high-quality assessments. The peer review process serves as the core quality-control mechanism for validating scientific rigor, empirical integrity, and academic contribution before publication.

Key Stages of the Peer Review Workflow

1. Desk Review and Initial Screening

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial preliminary evaluation by the Editorial Team to ensure basic publishing criteria are met:

  • Scope Alignment: Verifying that the topic falls strictly within ISSR’s thematic scope in the social sciences.
  • Plagiarism Screening: Checking similarity via plagiarism detection software (such as Turnitin or iThenticate). Manuscripts exceeding acceptable similarity thresholds are returned or rejected immediately.
  • Format and Ethical Compliance: Confirming adherence to the journal’s author guidelines, author declarations, and structural requirements.

2. External Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass initial desk screening are assigned to at least two independent, subject-matter expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their domain expertise, research background, and absence of competing interests. Reviewers are typically given 14 to 21 days to complete their evaluation.

3. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodological rigor, logical consistency, clarity, and adherence to ethical standards. They provide detailed narrative comments alongside one of four formal recommendations:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication as presented, with no or negligible changes required.
  • Revisions Required: Minor textual, stylistic, or clarification adjustments are needed; no second round of peer review is required.
  • Resubmit for Review: Major conceptual, empirical, or methodological revisions are required. The revised version will be returned to reviewers for a second round of peer review.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript contains fundamental flaws, lacks sufficient scientific contribution, or fails to meet ISSR’s scholarly standards.

4. Editorial Decision

The Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief synthesizes the reviewers' reports and renders the official editorial decision. Final decision categories communicated to authors include:

  • Acceptance: The manuscript is officially accepted and moved to copyediting, layout, and production.
  • Minor Revision: Authors are granted a specified timeframe (typically 7–14 days) to address minor reviewer suggestions.
  • Major Revision: Authors are granted extended time (typically 21–30 days) to undertake substantial revisions and submit a detailed point-by-point response letter before re-evaluation.
  • Rejection: The manuscript is declined for publication. Where appropriate, the editor may suggest redirecting the manuscript to a more suitable publication venue.

5. Author Revision Protocol

When revisions are requested, authors must resubmit the revised manuscript with all changes clearly highlighted (e.g., using Track Changes or colored text), accompanied by a comprehensive "Response to Reviewers" document detailing how each comment was addressed. Incomplete responses may lead to immediate rejection or delays in processing.

6. Principles, Ethics, and Appeals

ISSR strictly operates under the standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers provide expert guidance, but final decision-making authority rests exclusively with the Editorial Board, independent of commercial or political influences.

Appeals: Authors who believe a decision was made based on a factual misunderstanding or procedural oversight may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days of receiving the decision notice, detailing specific, evidence-based grounds for reconsideration.