Peer Review Policy

TEMALI: Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, and academic credibility of its publications through a rigorous, fair, independent, and transparent peer-review process. The journal adopts a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. Every manuscript that successfully passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least three independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter.

The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with the journal's editorial standards and relevant guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Team before entering the peer-review process. This preliminary evaluation examines the manuscript's suitability for the journal's focus and scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines, academic quality, originality, and adherence to publication requirements.

Manuscripts are screened for textual similarity, with a maximum similarity threshold of 20%. Manuscripts exceeding this threshold may be declined or returned for revision, depending on the nature and extent of the identified similarities. Similarity reports are evaluated contextually, considering appropriate citation practices, legitimate quotations, and the possibility of unattributed or improperly reproduced material. A similarity score below the threshold does not automatically establish originality or exclude the possibility of plagiarism.

The Editorial Team may return manuscripts for preliminary revision or decline submissions that do not meet the journal's minimum editorial and academic requirements. Only manuscripts that successfully complete this initial screening proceed to external peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least three qualified and independent reviewers selected according to their academic expertise, research experience, and relevance to the manuscript's subject area.

Reviewers are selected from institutions other than those with which the authors are affiliated to support independent evaluation. The Editorial Team also considers potential competing interests and ensures that reviewer assignments are based on scholarly competence and impartiality.

Reviewers conduct their assessments independently and provide objective, evidence-based evaluations. Where necessary, the Editorial Team may appoint additional reviewers to obtain further specialist assessment or resolve substantial differences in reviewer recommendations.

Reviewers are expected to disclose relevant competing interests in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and applicable editorial policies.

3. Peer Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to their academic merit, methodological rigor, and contribution to scholarly knowledge, particularly within the fields of social development, social transformation, community development, social policy, and other areas covered by the journal's focus and scope.

The evaluation considers the following criteria:

Originality and Scholarly Contribution: The manuscript demonstrates originality, identifies a clear research gap, and makes a meaningful contribution to existing scholarship.
Relevance to the Journal's Scope: The research addresses issues consistent with the journal's academic focus and intended readership.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework: The study employs relevant theoretical perspectives, clearly defined concepts, and a coherent analytical framework.
Methodological Rigor: The research design, data sources, collection procedures, and analytical methods are appropriate, clearly explained, and consistent with the research objectives.
Quality of Findings and Discussion: Research findings are supported by adequate evidence, critically examined, and meaningfully discussed in relation to relevant previous studies.
Argumentative Coherence: The conclusions and claims are logically developed, proportionate to the evidence presented, and consistent with the research objectives.
Academic Writing and Referencing: The manuscript demonstrates clarity, structural coherence, accurate citation practices, and compliance with the journal's referencing guidelines.
Research Integrity: The manuscript meets relevant standards of originality, responsible research practices, and academic integrity.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, constructive, and academically substantiated recommendations that contribute to improving the quality of the manuscript.

4. Peer Review Procedure

The peer-review process follows these stages:

a. Manuscript Submission: Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's Online Journal Systems (OJS) platform in accordance with the Author Guidelines.

b. Initial Editorial Assessment: The Editorial Team evaluates the manuscript's suitability, completeness, academic quality, originality, and compliance with the journal's similarity threshold.

c. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to at least three qualified and independent reviewers under the double-blind peer-review system.

d. Independent Peer Review: The assigned reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and submit written comments, assessments, and recommendations through the OJS platform.

e. Editorial Evaluation: The handling editor examines the reviewers' assessments and recommendations. Where substantial differences arise among reviewers, the editor may seek further clarification or appoint an additional reviewer.

f. Author Revision: Authors may be required to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer comments and editorial recommendations. Revised submissions must include a clear explanation of how the comments have been addressed, along with a revised manuscript indicating the changes made.

g. Re-evaluation and Final Decision: Revised manuscripts may undergo further assessment by the handling editor or the original reviewers, depending on the extent of the revisions. Manuscripts requiring major revisions are generally returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Completion of the peer-review process does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

5. Peer Review Timeline

The journal is committed to conducting peer review efficiently while maintaining the quality, independence, and academic rigor of the evaluation process.

The maximum duration of the initial peer-review process is six weeks (42 calendar days), calculated from the date on which the manuscript formally enters the peer-review stage following initial editorial screening.

During this period, the assigned reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations and submit their recommendations to the Editorial Team.

The six-week period refers to the initial external peer-review stage and does not include preliminary editorial screening, author revision periods, subsequent review rounds, copyediting, production, or publication scheduling.

Authors are normally given the following revision periods:

Minor Revisions: Up to two weeks (14 calendar days).
Major Revisions: Up to four weeks (28 calendar days).

Extensions may be granted upon reasonable request and at the discretion of the Editorial Team.

If an unexpected delay occurs during peer review, the Editorial Team will inform the corresponding author of the circumstances and provide an updated timeline.

Editorial decisions and revision requests are communicated to authors through the OJS platform.

6. Editorial Decisions and Revision Process

Following the peer-review process, the Editorial Team may communicate one of the following decisions:

Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal's academic and editorial standards and may proceed to the publication preparation stage.
Revisions Required: The manuscript requires revisions before a final editorial decision can be made.
Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revision and further assessment through another review round.
Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or editorial requirements.

Authors are expected to respond systematically to reviewer comments and submit revised manuscripts within the specified revision period.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on the reviewers' recommendations, scholarly quality, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with editorial standards.

Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not automatically determine, the final editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief may request additional assessments when necessary to ensure a fair and academically justified decision.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, and publication scheduling in accordance with the journal's editorial workflow.

7. Editorial Accountability and Policy Transparency

TEMALI: Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial is committed to maintaining a consistent, independent, and transparent peer-review process. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, academic relevance, and the integrity of the evaluation process.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for publication decisions, while reviewers provide independent scholarly assessments and recommendations.

All matters relating to reviewer confidentiality, competing interests, ethical responsibilities, and publication misconduct are governed by the journal's Publication Ethics and other applicable editorial policies.

This policy should be read in conjunction with the journal's Author Guidelines, Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy, and other relevant publication policies.

The journal refers to the following internationally recognized guidelines: