Jurnal Arbitrer is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. Our double-blind peer review system ensures that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous, promoting objectivity and reducing potential bias in editorial decisions.

Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team, including the Editor-in-Chief or designated editorial board members. This step evaluates:

• Alignment with the journal’s scope and focus

• Compliance with submission guidelines and ethical standards

• Overall originality, relevance, and clarity

Manuscripts failing to meet basic criteria (for example, out of scope, major ethical concerns, or poor language quality) may be rejected without external review. Approved manuscripts are assigned a unique manuscript ID for tracking.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Jurnal Arbitrer uses a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer review process where:

• Authors’ identities are hidden from reviewers

• Reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors

This process promotes impartial, unbiased evaluation and protects the integrity of the review.

Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject expertise

• Prior publication record

• Experience as peer reviewers

• Lack of conflicts of interest with the authors or institutions

If reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the Editor may assign additional reviewers to ensure a fair and balanced assessment.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts based on:

• Novelty of the topic and research question

• Originality and innovation of the approach

• Scientific and methodological rigor

• Relevance and contribution to the field

• Ethical soundness (including compliance with ethical guidelines and approvals)

• Logical structure and clarity of argumentation

• Quality of writing (grammar, coherence, and organization)

• Adequacy and appropriateness of references

• Adherence to the journal’s author guidelines

Reviewer Responsibilities

Invited reviewers are expected to review the manuscript critically but constructively, providing detailed comments to help authors improve their work. They should:

• Complete reviews within the specified deadlines or notify the editor if an extension is needed

• Provide clear, well-justified recommendations (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject)

• Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest

• Maintain strict confidentiality — manuscripts and related materials must not be shared, copied, or discussed outside the review process

• Report any suspected ethical issues or research misconduct, such as plagiarism or data fabrication

• Suggest alternative qualified reviewers if they are unable to accept the review invitation

Timeline and Communication

Reviewers are generally given two to four weeks to complete their reviews. Authors are informed of the approximate review timeline at submission. If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address all reviewer and editor comments comprehensively and resubmit within the specified timeframe (usually two to four weeks for minor revisions; four to eight weeks for major revisions).

Editorial Decision-Making

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated senior editorial board members. Decisions are based on:

• Reviewer recommendations

• Editorial judgment on the manuscript’s significance, originality, and fit for the journal

• Adherence to ethical, methodological, and reporting standards

The editorial team reserves the right to make the final decision even when reviewer opinions differ.

Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

All participants in the peer review process — editors, reviewers, authors — are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards. Reviewers and editors must not:

• Use the submitted work for personal advantage

• Contact or identify the authors directly

• Disclose, share, or reproduce any part of the manuscript under review

Reviewer Guidance

At Jurnal Arbitrer, peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the journal’s scholarly standards. Their evaluations ensure that published research is accurate, robust, and relevant. Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.

Peer reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts solely based on Jurnal Arbitrer’s publication criteria, ensuring evaluations are grounded in scholarly merit and relevance. To maintain integrity and fairness, reviewers should follow these key conventions:

• Reviewers should familiarize themselves with the journal’s peer review policy before disclosing their role as reviewers.

• Reviews must be conducted objectively, focusing on the research rather than the individual.

• Personal criticisms and defamatory or libelous comments are unacceptable.

• Reviewers must clearly articulate their evaluations, providing well-supported arguments and referencing relevant sources.

• Any potential conflicts of interest — whether due to competitive, collaborative, or institutional relationships — must be declared.

• Reviewers should decline assignments where such conflicts of interest exist.

• Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality: they should not share, discuss, or use unpublished materials for personal benefit.

• If a reviewer wishes to delegate the review task to a colleague, prior approval from the editorial team is required.

• Any concerns about these guidelines or other aspects of the peer review process should be promptly communicated to the editorial office.

For questions or concerns related to the peer review process, reviewers are invited to contact the editorial office at arbitrer@hum.unand.ac.id.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Summarize the key results and contributions of the manuscript

• Assess whether the methodology and analytical approaches are rigorous and appropriate

• Judge whether the conclusions drawn are adequately supported by the data

• Evaluate the novelty and contribution of the work to the field

• Ensure that relevant references are provided and appropriately cited

• Confirm sufficient detail for replication and proper referencing of supplementary materials

• Check that statistical methods are properly applied and interpreted

• Assess the clarity, flow, and organization of the manuscript

• Verify ethical compliance, including approvals and participant confidentiality

• Notify the editor of any ethical concerns, including potential plagiarism or data manipulation

Reviewers should act with fairness, offering constructive feedback, even when recommending rejection. They must assess only within their expertise, disclose conflicts of interest, uphold confidentiality, and avoid the use of generative AI tools unless explicitly permitted. Before submission, reviewers should ensure that their comments are professional, respectful, and helpful.

Review Quality and Process Improvement

Jurnal Arbitrer regularly monitors reviewer performance to ensure high-quality, constructive feedback. We welcome feedback from authors and reviewers to continuously improve the fairness, efficiency, and transparency of the peer review process. Contact us via editorial email: arbitrer@hum.unand.ac.id

References:

COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Editing peer reviews — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/AoZQIusn