Peer-Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to Ganaya: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora undergo a rigorous and systematic peer review process to ensure academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope. The journal implements a single-blind peer review system, in which reviewers are informed of the authors' identities, while the identities of reviewers remain confidential to the authors throughout the review process. This approach enables reviewers to conduct independent and objective evaluations while maintaining confidentiality, academic integrity, and ethical standards in scholarly publishing.
The peer review process involves the following stages:
1. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the editorial board to determine its suitability for publication in Ganaya: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora. This preliminary assessment focuses on the manuscript's alignment with the journal's aims and scope, originality, academic relevance, manuscript structure, formatting requirements, and compliance with publication ethics.
All submitted manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 20% may be rejected during the initial screening, particularly when the similarity indicates substantial textual overlap, plagiarism, or inappropriate citation practices. The editorial board may also request preliminary revisions before forwarding a manuscript for external peer review.
Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's fundamental academic or ethical requirements may be rejected without external review.
2. Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least one independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication records, and ability to provide impartial and constructive evaluations. The editorial board ensures that reviewers have no conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the review process.
Under the journal's single-blind peer review system, reviewers have access to the authors' names and institutional affiliations. However, reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors. Authors are therefore not required to remove identifying information from their manuscripts solely for the purpose of anonymous peer review.
Reviewers are generally expected to complete their evaluations within two weeks of accepting the review invitation.
3. Peer Review Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on their scientific merit, theoretical and practical contributions, methodological rigor, originality, clarity of argumentation, and relevance to the fields of social sciences and humanities.
The evaluation considers the following criteria:
- Originality and Scholarly Contribution: The extent to which the manuscript presents original findings, perspectives, or theoretical contributions that advance existing knowledge.
- Theoretical and Conceptual Framework: The appropriateness, clarity, and relevance of the theoretical foundations and conceptual arguments.
- Methodological Rigor: The suitability of the research design, data collection procedures, analytical methods, and interpretation of findings.
- Quality of Analysis and Discussion: The depth, coherence, and critical engagement demonstrated in interpreting research findings.
- Relevance to the Journal's Scope: The manuscript's contribution to contemporary issues and scholarly discussions within social sciences and humanities.
- Academic Writing and Organization: The clarity, coherence, logical structure, and consistency of academic language and presentation.
- Research and Publication Ethics: Compliance with ethical research practices, citation integrity, proper acknowledgment of sources, and avoidance of plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct.
Reviewers provide constructive and evidence-based feedback to support the improvement of manuscript quality. Following their evaluation, reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:
a. Acceptance Without Revision
The manuscript meets the journal's academic, methodological, and ethical standards and is considered suitable for publication without substantive modifications.
b. Minor Revision
The manuscript demonstrates sufficient academic merit but requires limited improvements, such as clarification of arguments, refinement of language, correction of references, or minor adjustments to the presentation of findings.
c. Major Revision
The manuscript has publication potential but requires substantial improvements in its theoretical framework, methodological approach, data analysis, interpretation, or discussion. Revised manuscripts are generally returned to reviewers for further evaluation.
d. Rejection
The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic or ethical standards due to fundamental weaknesses in originality, research design, methodology, scholarly contribution, or relevance to the journal's scope.
4. Editorial Decision
Following the completion of peer review, the editor-in-chief makes the final editorial decision based on the reviewers' recommendations, the manuscript's academic quality, and its compliance with the journal's publication standards.
When significant differences arise between reviewers' evaluations, the editorial board may seek additional expert opinions to ensure a fair and well-informed decision.
The final editorial decision may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Authors are notified through the journal's online submission system and receive the reviewers' comments without disclosure of reviewer identities.
The average period from initial submission to the first editorial decision is approximately one month, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of the evaluation required.
Following acceptance, the editorial production process generally takes approximately two to four weeks, subject to the journal's publication schedule.
5. Revision and Resubmission
Authors whose manuscripts require revision must submit a revised version accompanied by a detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
Authors are expected to respond systematically to the reviewers' recommendations and clearly identify the modifications made to the manuscript.
The revision periods are generally established as follows:
- Minor Revision: Authors are expected to submit the revised manuscript within two weeks of receiving the editorial decision.
- Major Revision: Authors are normally granted up to four weeks to complete substantial revisions.
Manuscripts undergoing major revisions are generally reassessed by the original reviewers to determine whether the identified concerns have been adequately addressed. Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the handling editor without additional external review.
The editorial board reserves the right to request further revisions when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's academic and publication standards.
6. Final Acceptance and Publication
Once a manuscript has successfully completed the peer review process and received final editorial approval, it proceeds to the production stage.
The accepted manuscript undergoes copyediting, language and formatting checks, reference verification, layout preparation, and final proofreading to ensure consistency with the journal's editorial and publication standards.
Authors may be requested to review and approve the final proofs before publication.
The manuscript is subsequently published in Ganaya: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora according to the journal's established publication schedule.
The editorial board is committed to maintaining transparency, editorial independence, confidentiality of reviewer identities, and adherence to internationally recognized principles of publication ethics throughout the editorial and publication process.
7. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities
Ganaya: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora is committed to maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the single-blind peer review process.
Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential scholarly documents and must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage.
Although reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, they are required to evaluate manuscripts objectively and without discrimination based on institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, religious background, personal relationships, or other irrelevant considerations.
Reviewers must immediately inform the editorial board of any actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline review assignments when impartiality cannot be ensured.
The identities of reviewers remain confidential and are not disclosed to authors unless disclosure is explicitly authorized under an applicable journal policy.
The editorial board retains full responsibility for editorial decisions and is committed to ensuring that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly, consistently, and in accordance with recognized principles of publication ethics.
