JURNAL ARBITRER follows a rigorous and transparent review process to ensure the quality and credibility of the published articles. The journal adopts a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review type, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous during the review process.

Submission and Initial Evaluation

All manuscripts submitted to JURNAL ARBITRER undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team to assess their suitability and compliance with the journal's scope and guidelines. Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are assigned a unique identification number for further processing.

Peer Review

Each eligible manuscript is then sent for review to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise, experience, and prior contributions to the field. In cases where conflicting opinions arise, additional reviewers may be assigned to provide a comprehensive evaluation.

Double-Blind Review

JURNAL ARBITRER ensures a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. This helps maintain objectivity and fairness in the evaluation process, minimizing potential biases.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess the submitted manuscripts based on their scientific quality, originality, relevance to the journal's scope, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical guidelines. Constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement are encouraged to assist the authors in enhancing the quality of their work.

Review Duration

JURNAL ARBITRER strives to provide timely and efficient peer review. Reviewers are typically given a specific timeframe to complete their evaluations. Authors will be informed of the review process's estimated duration during the initial submission or after any significant revisions.

Decision and Revision

Upon completion of the peer review process, the editorial team considers the reviewers' comments and recommendations. Authors will receive a decision, which may include acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection. If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address all reviewers' comments thoroughly and resubmit the revised manuscript within the stipulated timeframe.

Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding the publication of a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board members. The editorial team carefully considers the reviewers' assessments, the originality of the work, the relevance to the journal's scope, and the adherence to ethical standards before making a final decision.


JURNAL ARBITRER maintains strict confidentiality of the peer review process. Reviewers are required to treat the manuscripts and their contents as confidential documents and should not disclose any information to unauthorized individuals.

Review Process Improvement

JURNAL ARBITRER continuously seeks to improve its review process. Authors and reviewers' feedback are invaluable in this endeavor. The journal welcomes constructive feedback and suggestions to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the review process.


For any inquiries or questions related to the review process, please contact the editorial team at arbitrer[at]hum.unand.ac.id.

If Arbitrer Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

  1. Reviewing manuscript critically, but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
  2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
  3. Providing all required information within established deadlines
  4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
  5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review
  6. Reporting possible research misconducts
  7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
  8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
  9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
  10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors
  11. Not identifying themselves to authors
  12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
  13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
  14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
  15. Writing review report in English only
  16. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.

Here list of items that need to be reviewed:

  1. Novelty of the topic
  2. Originality
  3. Scientific reliability
  4. Valuable contribution to the science
  5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
  6. Ethical aspects
  7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
  8. References provided to substantiate the content
  9. Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
  10. Scientific misconduct