| Dimensia: Jurnal Kajian Sosiologi

Peer Review Process

The peer review process in DIMENSIA: Jurnal Kajian Sosiologi is intended to ensure that only high-quality manuscripts relevant to the journal’s focus and scope are published. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated through administrative screening, editorial assessment, and peer review before a final editorial decision is made.

Double-Blind Review

Reviewer and author identities are concealed during the review process.

Editorial Screening

Manuscripts are screened for format, scope, originality, and basic quality.

Decision & Revision

Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations and editorial judgment.

1. Administrative Submission Evaluation

Each submission is first checked by the journal administrator to ensure compliance with the journal’s submission requirements, including file format, manuscript length, language quality, references, and general formatting. Submissions that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further processing.

2. Initial Editorial Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor evaluates whether the manuscript fits the journal’s aims and scope and meets minimum standards of originality, academic quality, and clarity. A manuscript may be rejected at this stage if it is outside the journal’s scope, has major methodological or scholarly weaknesses, or does not meet editorial standards.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation are sent for double-blind peer review. In this process, reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s), and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This process is intended to support objective and fair scholarly assessment.

4. Reviewer Selection and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and relevance to the manuscript topic. In general, reviewers are asked to assess whether the manuscript:

is original and contributes to the field;
uses appropriate and sound methods;
presents results clearly and supports its conclusions;
engages relevant literature appropriately;
follows ethical and academic integrity standards.

5. Editorial Decision and Revision

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor may issue one of the following decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the same reviewers for further evaluation when necessary. Reviewer comments are normally forwarded to the authors to support revision and improvement of the manuscript.

6. Review Duration and Final Decision

The duration of peer review depends on reviewer availability and the revision process. Authors are informed of editorial decisions as soon as possible. The final decision on manuscript acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer recommendations and editorial consideration.

Important Note

Language correction is not the main purpose of peer review. However, reviewers may provide comments on language and style where relevant. The editorial team may request further language revision if needed before publication.