Peer Review Process

Editorial Policy

Peer Review Process

Jurnal Harkat: Media Komunikasi Gender

 

Jurnal Harkat: Media Komunikasi Gender applies a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of published manuscripts. All submissions undergo preliminary editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review.

The journal implements a double-blind peer review system involving at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, reviewer recommendations, research integrity, and the journal's editorial standards.

Double-Blind
Review Model
≥ 2
Independent Reviewers
6–10 Weeks
Target First Decision
Editor-in-Chief
Final Decision Authority
1. Criteria for Publication

Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Harkat must demonstrate academic relevance, originality, methodological rigor, and a meaningful contribution to gender and child-related scholarship. The following criteria guide editorial screening and peer review.

01
Originality and Novelty
The manuscript identifies a research gap and offers original findings, critical perspectives, or a substantive scholarly contribution.
02
Methodological Rigor
The research applies appropriate methods, transparent analytical procedures, and credible evidence to support its conclusions.
03
Scholarly Significance
The findings or arguments advance academic understanding and engage critically with relevant scholarly literature.
04
Scope and Relevance
The manuscript contributes to gender studies, women's issues, child studies, family studies, or related interdisciplinary fields.
2. Editorial Review Stages and Timeline

The Review Process

The editorial process consists of preliminary screening, reviewer assignment, external peer review, editorial evaluation, revision where necessary, and final decision. The following timeline provides target periods for each stage.

Target Time to First Editorial Decision
6–10 Weeks

From manuscript submission to the first editorial decision, subject to reviewer availability and editorial assessment.

1
3–7 Working Days
Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team assesses the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, originality, formatting, research ethics, methodological clarity, and overall scholarly suitability. Manuscripts that fail to meet preliminary standards may be returned for correction or rejected without external review.

2
5–10 Working Days
Editor Assignment and Reviewer Invitation

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to a responsible editor, who identifies and invites at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, academic qualifications, independence, and availability. Additional invitations may be required when reviewers decline or do not respond.

3
3–5 Weeks
Double-Blind External Peer Review

Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript's originality, research questions, theoretical framework, methodology, evidence, analysis, discussion, and academic contribution. Each reviewer submits a report containing an assessment, recommendations, and constructive comments.

4
5–7 Working Days After Review Reports
First Editorial Decision

The editor considers the reviewers' reports and the manuscript's academic quality. The first decision may be acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission for review, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not determine it automatically.

5
If Revisions Are Required
Author Revision
MINOR REVISION
7–14 Days
Calendar days
MAJOR REVISION
21–30 Days
Calendar days

Authors must revise their manuscripts according to the editorial and reviewer comments and provide a detailed point-by-point response. Revision periods begin when the decision is communicated. Extensions may be granted upon a justified request to the editorial office.

6
1–3 Weeks, Where Applicable
Reassessment and Second Review

The editor examines whether the revisions adequately address the identified concerns. Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional experts. Further revisions may be requested if substantial issues remain unresolved.

7
3–7 Working Days After Reassessment
Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision based on the complete evaluation, reviewers' recommendations, manuscript revisions, and the journal's publication standards. A revised manuscript is not automatically accepted.

8
Following Acceptance
Copyediting, Production, and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, metadata verification, and publication scheduling. Authors may be asked to review article proofs. Publication timing follows the journal's production workflow and issue schedule.

Editorial Timeline Notice

The periods above represent target processing times, not guaranteed deadlines. Reviewer availability, additional revision rounds, ethical investigations, technical corrections, or other editorial circumstances may extend the process. The target of 6–10 weeks applies to the first editorial decision, not necessarily to final acceptance or publication.

3. Editorial Decisions and Revision Policy

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, relevance, originality, research integrity, and reviewer evaluations. The editorial team may issue the following decisions:

Accept
The manuscript meets publication standards and may proceed to editorial production.
Minor Revision
Limited corrections or clarifications are required before further consideration.
Major Revision
Substantial improvements to the argument, methodology, analysis, or presentation are required.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, ethical, or editorial requirements.

Where appropriate, the editor may request resubmission for another review round. Authors must respond to substantive reviewer concerns, but acceptance remains subject to editorial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief has final authority over manuscript acceptance or rejection.

4. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to disciplinary expertise, research experience, scholarly competence, independence, and relevance to the manuscript. The editorial team considers potential conflicts of interest before assigning a review. Reviewers should decline invitations when they cannot provide an objective or timely assessment.

Review Reports

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive evaluations. Reports should identify the manuscript's strengths, significant weaknesses, methodological concerns, and necessary improvements. Recommendations must be academically justified and communicated respectfully.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

The journal protects author and reviewer identities under its double-blind system. Review materials, unpublished findings, editorial communications, and reviewer reports must remain confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript information for personal advantage.

5. Ethics, Independence, and Editorial Integrity

Jurnal Harkat is committed to maintaining fairness, confidentiality, independence, and integrity throughout the review process. Editors and reviewers must evaluate manuscripts on scholarly merit without discrimination, inappropriate influence, or undisclosed competing interests.

  • Editorial Independence: Editorial decisions must not be influenced by financial contributions, institutional relationships, or personal interests.
  • Conflict of Interest: Editors and reviewers must disclose potential conflicts and withdraw from manuscript evaluation where impartiality may be compromised.
  • Research Ethics: Ethical concerns involving informed consent, vulnerable participants, children, gender-based violence, confidentiality, or data integrity may require additional assessment.
  • Research Misconduct: Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or citation manipulation must be addressed under the journal's publication-ethics procedures.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts and related editorial records must be handled confidentially throughout the evaluation process.

Where necessary, the editorial team may seek additional independent expertise on methodological, ethical, legal, or other matters affecting publication. The final responsibility for editorial decisions remains with the Editor-in-Chief.

6. Author Communication and Appeals

Editorial correspondence, revision requests, and manuscript decisions are communicated through the journal's online editorial system. The corresponding author is responsible for monitoring notifications, coordinating revisions, and ensuring timely responses.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision involves a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or other legitimate concern may submit a reasoned appeal through the journal's official communication channels. Appeals are evaluated according to the journal's complaints and appeals policy. Disagreement with a reviewer recommendation alone does not establish grounds for an appeal.

Commitment to Fair and Rigorous Peer Review

Jurnal Harkat: Media Komunikasi Gender is committed to a transparent, fair, independent, and constructive peer review process. The journal prioritizes academic quality, research originality, methodological rigor, ethical responsibility, and meaningful scholarly contributions to gender and child studies. All editorial decisions are made according to established publication standards and the integrity of the scholarly evaluation process.