Peer Review Process

Peradaban Journal of Religion and Society (PJRS) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance of all manuscripts considered for publication. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Manuscripts are evaluated by qualified scholars with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the submission.

The peer review process consists of the following stages:

1. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is first assessed by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the journal’s aims and scope and meets the journal’s basic scholarly and technical requirements. The editorial assessment considers the manuscript’s originality, academic relevance, methodological appropriateness, structure, language, citation practices, and compliance with the Author Guidelines.

The editorial team also conducts an initial similarity check using plagiarism-detection software. Manuscripts that demonstrate substantial similarity with previously published works, or that fail to meet the journal’s basic requirements, may be rejected at this stage or returned to the authors for correction before being considered for peer review.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary assessment proceed to the peer review stage.

2. Selection and Assignment of Reviewers

Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research background, and suitability for evaluating the submitted work.

Whenever possible, reviewers should be affiliated with institutions independent of the authors’ institutions. The editorial team also considers potential conflicts of interest before inviting reviewers.

The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential under the journal’s double-blind peer review system.

3. Peer Review and Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts primarily on the basis of their:

  • originality and contribution to the field;

  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;

  • clarity and significance of the research problem;

  • adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;

  • validity and coherence of the analysis and interpretation;

  • quality and relevance of the literature used;

  • clarity of presentation and academic writing; and

  • consistency between the research objectives, findings, discussion, and conclusions.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to assist authors in improving the manuscript. Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

4. Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the editorial team after considering the reviewers’ reports and the manuscript’s overall compliance with the journal’s publication standards.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editorial team may seek an additional review or undertake further editorial assessment before reaching a decision.

The editorial decision and relevant anonymous reviewer comments are communicated to the authors through the journal’s online submission system.

A reviewer’s recommendation is advisory; the final decision concerning publication rests with the journal’s editorial team.

5. Revision and Re-evaluation

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond carefully to the reviewers’ comments and revise the manuscript accordingly. Authors may be asked to provide a response to reviewers explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial or major revisions have been requested. The editorial team may request additional revisions when the revised manuscript does not adequately address the reviewers’ concerns.

6. Final Editorial Assessment and Publication

Once a manuscript has received a final acceptance decision, it undergoes the journal’s editorial and production processes, which may include copyediting, language editing, reference checking, formatting, and proofreading.

The final version is published online as part of the scheduled issue after all editorial and production requirements have been completed.

Review Integrity

PJRS expects reviewers to conduct their evaluations objectively, confidentially, and within their area of expertise. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest and should not use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage.

The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or other forms of research and publication misconduct. Any suspected misconduct identified during editorial or peer review will be handled in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and applicable scholarly publishing standards.

Through this double-blind peer review process, Peradaban Journal of Religion and Society (PJRS) seeks to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, and academic integrity.