Peer-Review Policy

The Andalas International Journal of Socio-Humanities (AIJOSH) upholds a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, impactful, and original scholarly contributions. The process is designed to maintain academic integrity and foster constructive feedback for authors.

  1. Initial Manuscript Submission and Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes a thorough initial review by the editorial team. This stage focuses on:

  • Assessing adherence to the journal’s scope and focus.
  • Checking compliance with submission guidelines, including formatting, citations, and reference lists.
  • Verifying originality through plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin) to ensure ethical standards are met.

If the manuscript does not align with the journal’s scope or requires significant revision in structure or presentation, the editorial team may recommend revisions before proceeding to peer review or reject the submission outright.

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are subjected to a double-blind peer-review process, ensuring that:

  • The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.
  • Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two expert reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise.

The reviewers are tasked with assessing the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and contribution to the field of socio-humanities.
  • Clarity and coherence of arguments, methodology, and findings.
  • Rigor of research design and analysis.
  • Relevance to the journal’s focus on marginalized groups and socio-humanities topics.
  • Adherence to ethical research standards.
  1. Reviewers’ Recommendations

Based on their assessments, reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommend one of the following outcomes:

  1. Accept: The manuscript meets all requirements for publication with no or minor revisions.
  2. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires slight improvements before it can be accepted.
  3. Major Revision: The manuscript needs significant changes and must undergo another round of review.
  4. Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and a complete re-evaluation in the next review cycle.
  5. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is unsuitable for publication.
  1. Editorial Decision

The editorial team considers the reviewers’ recommendations and makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept the manuscript as is.
  • Request minor or major revisions with a specified timeline for resubmission.
  • Reject the manuscript outright if it does not meet the journal’s standards or falls outside its scope.

In cases where reviewers’ recommendations diverge significantly, the editorial team may consult an additional reviewer for a final decision.

  1. Revision Process

Authors are provided with consolidated feedback from the reviewers and editors. They are expected to:

  • Address all comments and suggestions thoroughly.
  • Submit a revised manuscript within the timeline specified by the editorial team.
  • Provide a detailed response letter highlighting changes made in response to reviewers’ feedback.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeframe may result in the manuscript being withdrawn from consideration.

  1. Final Decision and Production

After revisions are received, the editorial team ensures all concerns have been addressed adequately. The final decision regarding publication is at the discretion of the managing editor, based on the recommendations of the reviewers and the quality of revisions.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, where they undergo copyediting, layout design, and final proofing before publication.

  1. Communication with Authors

AIJOSH maintains open and transparent communication with authors throughout the review process. Authors are notified of each stage and provided with clear timelines for feedback, revisions, and final decisions.

  1. Timeframe

The entire peer-review process, from initial submission to final decision, typically takes between 1 to 4 months, depending on the complexity of revisions and reviewer availability.