Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to Paradigma: Jurnal Kalam dan Filsafat undergo a rigorous evaluation process to ensure academic integrity and quality.
1. Initial Screening
Each submission is first reviewed by the editorial team to assess its compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and originality standards (including plagiarism checks). Manuscripts that do not meet basic criteria may be rejected at this stage without peer review.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are forwarded to at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind review system—neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. This is to ensure an unbiased and objective evaluation.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise and experience in the relevant subject area. They may include members of the Editorial Board or external experts. All reviewers must be free from conflicts of interest.
3. Conflict of Interest Policy
Reviewers must decline the assignment if any of the following situations apply:
- They have co-authored with the author(s) in the past three years;
- They are currently affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors;
- They have or have had a supervisory/mentorship relationship with the author(s);
- They have personal or professional relationships (including financial interests) that may influence the review;
- They have a close personal connection (e.g., family, close friends) with the author(s).
Previous collaborations in academic events or research projects do not automatically disqualify a reviewer unless objectivity is clearly compromised.
4. Review Timeline
The peer review process is expected to be completed within six (6) weeks. If delays are expected, reviewers are asked to notify the editors promptly.
Editorial Decision and Revisions
After receiving peer review reports, the editor will assess the feedback and communicate one of the following decisions to the author(s):
- Accept Submission
The manuscript is accepted without revisions and will proceed to copyediting. - Revisions Required
Minor revisions are needed. Authors are given one (1) week to address the reviewers' comments.
- Resubmit for Review
Major revisions are necessary before reconsideration. Authors must submit a point-by-point response and may be asked to provide justifications for unrevised points. Only one round of major revision is typically permitted. Authors are allowed up to three (3) weeks for this process.
- Decline Submission
The manuscript is rejected due to serious flaws or insufficient scholarly contribution. It will not be reconsidered unless resubmitted as a new manuscript.
If substantial additional work (e.g., new experiments or data collection) is required, the manuscript will be declined with encouragement to resubmit after improvements.
Response to Reviewers
Authors must provide a clear, point-by-point response to each reviewer comment. If the authors disagree with a suggestion, they must present a reasoned justification.
Appeal Process
Authors who disagree with a rejection decision may submit an appeal by emailing the Managing Editor. Appeals must include:
- A detailed justification for the appeal;
- A response to each of the reviewers’ and/or editor’s comments.
Appeals will be reviewed independently by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editorial board member. Decisions from the appeal process are final.
Production and Publication
Accepted manuscripts will go through:
- Professional copyediting and language polishing;
- Author proofreading and final revisions;
- Pagination and online publication.
The print version will be released within one to two weeks after the online version is published.
Post-Publication Corrections
Requests for corrections to published articles must be submitted within one (1) week of online publication. For details, please refer to the journal’s correction policy.
