Peer Review Policy

Purpose and Principles of Peer Review

Jurnal Puitika is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publications through a transparent, rigorous, fair, and independent editorial evaluation process. Peer review is an essential component of this commitment and is intended to assess the scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, analytical rigor, and contribution of submitted manuscripts to their respective fields of study.

All editorial and peer review decisions shall be based on scholarly merit, the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s aims and scope, and compliance with applicable research and publication ethics standards. Decisions shall not be influenced by the authors’ nationality, ethnicity, institutional affiliation, political beliefs, religion, gender, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

Jurnal Puitika applies its peer review policy consistently while recognizing the methodological and epistemological diversity of research in linguistics, literature, cultural studies, and other relevant fields within the journal’s scope.

Peer Review Model

Jurnal Puitika employs a double-anonymous peer review model. Under this model, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the peer review process.

The identities of both authors and reviewers are accessible only to authorized members of the journal’s editorial team who require such information to perform their editorial responsibilities. The editorial team shall take reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, including the removal of identifying information from manuscript files and review documents where applicable.

Authors are responsible for preparing manuscripts in a manner that supports the double-anonymous review process, including removing identifying information from the main manuscript and associated files, where applicable. Reviewers shall respect the anonymity of the parties involved and shall not attempt to identify authors or disclose their own identities during the review process.

The double-anonymous model does not eliminate every possibility of identifying an author from a manuscript’s content, references, or research context. Nevertheless, Jurnal Puitika requires all parties to make reasonable efforts to preserve anonymity and impartiality.

Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Manuscripts submitted through other channels shall be handled in accordance with the journal’s applicable submission procedures.

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor. This screening is intended to determine whether the manuscript satisfies the journal’s preliminary requirements before it proceeds to substantive peer review.

The initial editorial screening covers the following aspects:

Compliance with the journal’s submission requirements, manuscript format, and administrative requirements.
Relevance to the aims and scope of Jurnal Puitika.
Compliance with applicable research ethics and publication ethics standards, including preliminary consideration of potential plagiarism, redundant publication, and other indications of publication misconduct.
Completeness, organization, and structural adequacy of the manuscript.
Adequacy and consistency of citations and references.

Following the initial screening, the editorial team may take one of the following actions:

Proceed to peer review. Manuscripts that satisfy the preliminary requirements are forwarded for substantive peer review by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The editorial team is responsible for selecting reviewers whose qualifications and scholarly expertise are appropriate to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Request preliminary revisions. Manuscripts that require corrections to formatting, administrative requirements, scope-related presentation, structural completeness, citations, references, or other remediable preliminary deficiencies may be returned to the authors before peer review. Such revisions do not constitute acceptance or a guarantee that the manuscript will proceed to peer review.

Reject without external peer review. Manuscripts may be rejected at the initial screening stage if they fall outside the journal’s aims and scope or present serious concerns regarding research ethics, publication ethics, or other fundamental requirements that make further review inappropriate.

The editorial team shall communicate the outcome of the initial screening to the corresponding author through the registered email address and the OJS platform.

Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

Each manuscript that proceeds to substantive peer review shall be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. The editorial team may appoint additional reviewers when the manuscript involves substantial, interdisciplinary, methodological, theoretical, or other scholarly issues requiring further independent assessment.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their relevant expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, publication record, and ability to evaluate the manuscript objectively and constructively. Reviewer selection shall also take account of independence, potential conflicts of interest, availability, and the ability to complete the review within the timeframe established by the editorial team.

As a general requirement, reviewers should hold a doctoral degree and possess an established record of relevant scholarly work. In specific circumstances, a reviewer holding a master’s degree may be appointed when the editorial team determines that the individual has sufficient specialized expertise and a demonstrable record of relevant scholarly competence.

Reviewers are expected to possess the following qualifications and professional attributes:

Relevant subject-matter expertise corresponding to the manuscript under review.
Appropriate academic qualifications, normally at the doctoral level, except in justified cases in which a master’s degree is considered sufficient.
A relevant record of scholarly publications.
Research experience sufficient to evaluate research methods, data analysis, and scholarly writing within the reviewer’s area of competence.
Academic integrity and a commitment to publication ethics, objectivity, confidentiality, and scholarly honesty.
Independence and the ability to identify and disclose potential conflicts of interest.
The ability to evaluate originality, scholarly contribution, methodological appropriateness, the validity of arguments, and the relevance of research findings.
A commitment to completing the review within the deadline established by the editorial team.
Willingness to comply with Jurnal Puitika’s editorial policies and applicable ethical standards.

Reviewers shall not be selected solely on the basis of academic title or institutional position. Their suitability must be assessed in relation to the specific scholarly requirements of the manuscript.

Peer Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts systematically, critically, fairly, and constructively. The evaluation shall take account of the nature of the research, the conventions of the relevant discipline, and the methodological approach adopted by the author.

The principal evaluation criteria are as follows:

Research and Publication Ethics: Compliance with relevant ethical standards, including appropriate attribution, responsible use of sources, research integrity, and the ethical treatment of research participants or materials where applicable.
Relevance and Significance: Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, the significance of the research problem, and the importance of the manuscript to its field of study.
Research Problem and Objectives: Clarity, coherence, justification, and alignment of the research problem, questions, and objectives.
Theoretical Framework and Literature Review: Relevance and adequacy of the theoretical framework, critical engagement with previous scholarship, and the identification of the research gap or scholarly rationale.
Methodology: Appropriateness, transparency, and rigor of the research design, methods, procedures, and analytical framework in relation to the research objectives.
Data and Analysis: Adequacy and relevance of the data or research materials, the rigor of the analysis, and the extent to which interpretations and findings are supported by evidence.
Argumentation and Logical Coherence: Validity of the reasoning, consistency of the argument, coherence of the claims, and adequacy of the evidence supporting the conclusions.
Discussion: Depth and critical quality of the discussion, engagement with relevant scholarship, interpretation of findings, and consideration of the implications and limitations of the research.
Organization and Clarity: Logical organization, structural coherence, clarity of exposition, academic language, and consistency of citations and references.
Scholarly Contribution: Originality, novelty, theoretical or methodological contribution, empirical value, and potential significance for the development of knowledge in the relevant field.

These criteria shall be applied proportionately to the type and nature of the manuscript. For example, literary studies may be assessed in terms of interpretive rigor, textual evidence, theoretical engagement, and critical argumentation, while empirical linguistic studies may require closer examination of data, research design, analytical procedures, and the validity of findings.

Reviewers are expected to provide specific, evidence-based, and constructive comments that assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Personal remarks, unsupported judgments, discriminatory language, and comments unrelated to the scholarly evaluation of the manuscript are not acceptable.

Review Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Following substantive evaluation, reviewers shall submit their comments and recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly and publication standards. No substantive revisions are required, and any remaining corrections, if necessary, are very minor and do not affect the content or scholarly quality of the article.

Minor Revision

The manuscript generally meets the journal’s scholarly standards and is potentially suitable for publication, but several minor deficiencies must be corrected. These deficiencies do not materially affect the principal validity of the research, methodology, analysis, argumentation, or conclusions.

Major Revision

The manuscript has publication potential but requires substantial revisions before its suitability for publication can be established. The issues may concern the theoretical framework, methodology, data, analysis, argumentation, discussion, or conclusions. The identified deficiencies are considered potentially remediable through revision without necessarily requiring the research to be conducted from the beginning.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the minimum scholarly standards for publication and contains fundamental deficiencies that prevent the editorial team from establishing the reliability, validity, or scholarly contribution of the work. The deficiencies cannot reasonably be resolved through revision of the submitted manuscript or would require fundamental changes to the underlying research.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically constitute final editorial decisions. The final decision rests with the authorized editorial team, which shall consider the reviewer’s assessment, the manuscript’s scholarly merit, its relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with ethical standards, and the overall consistency of the evaluation with Jurnal Puitika’s editorial policies.

The editorial team may request further clarification, seek an additional independent assessment, or determine a different editorial outcome when justified by the manuscript’s content and the evidence available. Any departure from a reviewer’s recommendation shall be based on scholarly and editorial grounds rather than arbitrary considerations.

The editorial decision shall be communicated to the corresponding author through email and the OJS platform, together with the relevant reviewer comments and instructions for further action, where applicable.

Revision and Re-review

When revisions are requested, authors must revise their manuscripts in accordance with the editorial decision and the reviewers’ comments.

Authors are expected to submit:

A revised version of the manuscript.
A point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
A reasoned explanation for any recommendation that the authors do not adopt, where applicable.

The editorial team may return revised manuscripts to the original reviewer for further assessment. Re-review is intended to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the issues raised during the preceding review round and whether the revised manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly standards.

If the reviewer considers that the revisions are insufficient, further revisions may be requested. The manuscript may undergo more than one round of revision and re-review when necessary to establish its scholarly suitability.

The editorial team retains the authority to determine whether further review is necessary, whether the authors’ responses adequately address the concerns raised, and whether the manuscript is ready for a final decision. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

If the authors fail to submit the requested revisions within the applicable deadline and have not obtained an extension from the editorial team, the editorial team reserves the right to consider the manuscript withdrawn and close its editorial processing. The corresponding author shall be notified of this decision through email and the OJS platform. Any subsequent submission of the manuscript shall be treated as a new submission and shall be subject to the journal’s standard submission and peer review procedures.

Review Timelines

Jurnal Puitika establishes the following indicative timelines to support an orderly and timely editorial process:

Initial Editorial Screening: 5–7 working days from manuscript submission.
Preliminary Revision by Authors: 10 calendar days from the date the initial screening decision is communicated by email and through OJS.
Substantive Peer Review: 20–30 calendar days from the date the manuscript, following any required preliminary revisions, is forwarded to the reviewer.
Revision Following Peer Review: 20–30 calendar days from the date the review decision and reviewer comments are communicated to the corresponding author by email and through OJS.

The deadlines for author revisions are calculated from the date of notification, unless otherwise specified in the relevant editorial decision.

These timelines are intended to guide the editorial process and do not constitute a guarantee of acceptance or publication within a specified period. The total processing time may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, the extent of revisions required, additional review rounds, and other circumstances affecting the editorial process.

Where an unforeseen delay materially affects the expected review schedule, the editorial team should inform the corresponding author of the delay and, where appropriate, provide an updated estimate.

Extensions to author revision deadlines may be considered upon a reasoned request submitted to the editorial team before the applicable deadline. Approval of an extension remains at the discretion of the editorial team.

Confidentiality, Objectivity, and Conflicts of Interest

All parties involved in peer review must uphold the confidentiality, integrity, and impartiality of the process.

Reviewers must:

Treat manuscripts and all associated review materials as confidential documents.
Provide objective, fair, evidence-based, and constructive assessments.
Disclose any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflict of interest before accepting or continuing a review assignment.
Decline or discontinue a review when a conflict of interest may compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.
Refrain from using unpublished ideas, data, arguments, or findings obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.
Refrain from sharing, reproducing, distributing, or disclosing manuscript content to unauthorized persons.
Avoid personal, discriminatory, defamatory, or otherwise inappropriate comments.
Respect intellectual property rights and the anonymity of the parties involved.
Complete the review within the agreed deadline or inform the editorial team promptly if an extension is necessary.
Comply with Jurnal Puitika’s applicable editorial and publication ethics policies.

Reviewers must not upload or disclose confidential manuscript content, including the manuscript itself or any part thereof, to third-party services or generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to conduct substantive scholarly evaluations, generate or substantially draft peer review reports, or formulate review recommendations. The use of AI tools by reviewers, if permitted for limited purposes that do not involve disclosing confidential manuscript content, must comply with Jurnal Puitika’s AI Usage Policy. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, objectivity, confidentiality, and integrity of their assessments.

The editorial team shall assess disclosed conflicts of interest and take appropriate measures, including appointing an alternative reviewer or transferring editorial responsibility where necessary. Editorial personnel who have a conflict of interest in relation to a manuscript must not participate in decisions concerning that manuscript and shall be replaced by an appropriately independent editor.

Editorial Independence and Disagreement in Review

Jurnal Puitika recognizes that peer review involves scholarly judgment and that reviewers may reasonably differ in their assessments of a manuscript.

The editorial team is responsible for evaluating reviewer reports in their entirety and determining the appropriate editorial outcome. Reviewer recommendations shall not be treated as automatically binding decisions.

Where reviewer assessments conflict, lack sufficient justification, or appear inconsistent with the manuscript’s content, the editorial team may seek clarification, request an additional review, or undertake further editorial assessment. The editorial team may also depart from a reviewer’s recommendation when there are clear scholarly, methodological, ethical, or editorial grounds for doing so.

The final decision must be based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, the substance of the available assessments, the journal’s scope, and its applicable policies. Editorial decisions shall not be determined by personal preferences, external pressure, or considerations unrelated to the manuscript’s scholarly quality and ethical compliance.

Exceptions and Special Cases

Jurnal Puitika does not offer or implement any form of fast-track peer review. All manuscripts that proceed to substantive peer review are subject to the journal’s established editorial procedures and applicable quality standards, irrespective of the authors’ institutional affiliations, academic positions, or other personal characteristics.

The editorial team may determine that a manuscript requires additional reviewers, further assessment, or special editorial handling when justified by its subject matter, methodological complexity, interdisciplinary character, or the need to resolve substantive concerns.

Manuscripts that raise credible concerns regarding research misconduct, publication ethics, or other serious breaches of the journal’s policies may be suspended from further consideration while the concerns are assessed in accordance with the journal’s applicable publication ethics procedures.

Any exceptions to the standard peer review procedure, including the handling of editorials, book reviews, invited contributions, or other non-research content, shall be determined by the editorial team in accordance with the nature of the contribution and the journal’s applicable editorial policies. The review status of each article type shall be clearly communicated to authors and, where appropriate, identified in the published content. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, research articles are subject to the standard double-anonymous peer review process described in this policy.

Policy Compliance and Review

All authors, reviewers, and editorial personnel are expected to comply with this policy and with Jurnal Puitika’s related editorial and publication ethics policies.

Questions, complaints, or concerns regarding the fairness, confidentiality, integrity, or conduct of the peer review process may be submitted to the journal through its designated editorial contact: puitika@hum.unand.ac.id. Such concerns shall be handled fairly and confidentially, with appropriate safeguards against conflicts of interest and retaliation.

Where a complaint concerns an editor or a decision-maker directly involved in the matter, the journal shall arrange for an appropriately independent person to assess the complaint, where feasible.

Jurnal Puitika reserves the right to revise this policy when necessary to reflect changes in editorial practice, scholarly publishing standards, or publication ethics guidance. The journal shall ensure that the current version of the policy is publicly accessible on its official website.

Policy last updated: 15 May 2026