01

Our model

Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora uses double-anonymous peer review for original research and review articles: the authors do not know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers do not know who the authors are. Authors submit an anonymised manuscript.

The process follows COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which ask that reviews be objective and constructive, that manuscripts stay confidential, that conflicts of interest be declared, and that reviews be completed promptly.

02

Reviewers

—  The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers, and where possible one comes from outside the journal's home institution.

—  Reviewers need expertise in the subject, at least one Scopus or Web of Science publication, and a verifiable institutional email address and ORCID iD.

—  Reviewers are chosen without conflicts of interest, and the editor monitors the quality of their reviews.

—  If two reviews disagree sharply, a third reviewer may be invited.

03

Stages

1.  Submission and acknowledgement. The author submits an anonymised manuscript, and OJS issues a submission ID.

2.  Initial screening within 7 days by the Editor-in-Chief or a section editor: scope, format, anonymisation, similarity, and basic quality. The manuscript is sent to review, returned to the author, or rejected without review.

3.  Handling editor. The Editor-in-Chief assigns a section editor. An editor with a conflict of interest does not handle the manuscript.

4.  Reviewer invitation. Invitees respond within 7 days.

5.  Review. Reviewers have 21 days. An extension of up to 5 days may be agreed.

6.  Editorial decision. The handling editor makes a recommendation within 7 days of receiving the reviews.

7.  Revision. Minor revisions are due within 1 week and major revisions within 3 weeks. One extension of up to 1 week may be requested.

8.  Re-review and final decision. Minor revisions are checked by the editor within 1 week. Major revisions go back to the original reviewers, who have 10 days.

9.  After acceptance: copyediting, layout, and publication with a DOI.

Time limits

04

Decisions

—  Accept

—  Minor revisions

—  Major revisions

—  Resubmit for review

—  Decline

Decisions rest on the evidence in the manuscript and on the reviews, not on the identity or standing of the authors.

05

Duties of editors

—  Ensure a fair, timely, and confidential process, and protect the anonymity of authors and reviewers.

—  Choose qualified reviewers without conflicts of interest, and monitor the quality of reviews.

—  Remove or edit inappropriate reviewer comments before the reviews are sent to authors.

—  Make decisions on the evidence and the reviews.

—  Have another editor handle any manuscript submitted by an editor or a member of the editorial board.

06

Duties of reviewers

—  Accept an invitation only with the relevant expertise and the time to meet the deadline, and answer promptly even when declining.

—  Declare any conflict of interest and decline to review where one exists, for example a shared institution or recent collaboration with an author.

—  Keep the manuscript confidential: do not share it or use it for personal gain.

—  Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools.

—  Write objective, specific, and courteous comments, and do not try to identify the authors.

—  Report suspected misconduct to the editor.

07

Appeals

Authors may appeal against a decision to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision. Disagreement with the decision alone is not grounds for an appeal. The decision on appeal is final.

Complaints about the process are handled according to COPE's guidance. Concerns about misconduct go to the Research Misconduct policy.

08

Related

—  Publication Ethics

—  Author Guidelines

—  Conflict of Interest Policy

—  Reviewers