Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to Karsa: Jurnal Dinamika Masyarakat will undergo a systematic selection and evaluation process carried out by the Editorial Board. This process aims to ensure that every manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims, scope, and author guidelines, while also maintaining high academic standards. The journal applies a double-blind peer review procedure, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain undisclosed to one another.
1. Desk Review
At the preliminary stage, submitted manuscripts will be screened by the editorial team to verify compliance with the journal’s writing guidelines, scope, and academic quality requirements. Authors may be asked to revise their work if it does not fully meet the criteria. However, the Editorial Board reserves the right to reject manuscripts outright if they are considered unsuitable.
2. Peer Review
Manuscripts that successfully pass the desk review will be forwarded to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant subject area. The peer review process is expected to be completed within three weeks. Manuscripts that fail the desk review will not proceed to this stage.
3. Reviewer’s Recommendation
Based on the evaluation, reviewers will provide one of the following recommendations:
- Accepted – The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
- Accepted with Minor Revisions – The manuscript is acceptable once minor issues are corrected.
- Accepted with Major Revisions – Substantial improvements, such as additional data analysis, theoretical refinement, or structural rewriting, are required before acceptance.
- Rejected – The manuscript is unsuitable for publication, often due to fundamental weaknesses.
The reviewers’ recommendations will serve as the basis for the Editorial Board’s decision on the manuscript’s next stage.
4. Revision Process
For manuscripts requiring revisions, the editor will return the reviewer’s comments along with a review summary form to the author. Authors of manuscripts requiring major revisions are given three weeks, while those with minor revisions are allowed one week to resubmit. Authors must complete and attach the review summary form when submitting their revised version.
5. Final Editorial Decision
After revisions are submitted, the Editorial Board will re-evaluate the manuscript to ensure that the reviewers’ concerns have been adequately addressed. At this stage, manuscripts may still be rejected if revisions are deemed insufficient or not taken seriously.
6. Proofreading
Accepted manuscripts will undergo proofreading to ensure clarity, coherence, and overall linguistic quality.
7. Publication Confirmation
The final layout of the manuscript will be sent to the author for confirmation. At this stage, authors may correct typographical errors but may not introduce substantive changes. Once approved, the Editorial Secretary will process the manuscript for online publication on the journal’s website and for print publication.
Reviewer Guidelines
Manuscripts submitted to Karsa: Jurnal Dinamika Masyarakat will be evaluated through a double-blind peer review. Reviewers are responsible for providing objective and critical assessments to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Prior to conducting a review, reviewers are expected to carefully consider the following points:
- Relevance to Expertise: Does the manuscript fall within your area of expertise? If it does not sufficiently match your specialization, please inform the Editorial Secretary immediately.
- Availability of Time: The review should ideally be completed within two weeks of receiving the manuscript. If additional time is required, please contact the Editorial Secretary.
- Conflict of Interest: If you have any conflict of interest with the manuscript, its authors, or related institutions, please notify the Editorial Secretary without delay.
- Plagiarism Concerns: If there are indications of plagiarism or ethical violations, reviewers should promptly report this to the Editorial Secretary.
Review Process
-
Title: Does the title clearly reflect the content of the manuscript?
-
Abstract: Does the abstract provide a concise and accurate summary of the manuscript?
-
Introduction: Does the introduction present sufficient background, research objectives, or hypotheses? Is a relevant literature review integrated into the introduction?
-
Compliance with Guidelines: Has the manuscript been prepared according to the journal’s author guidelines?
-
Content Evaluation:If the topic has been addressed in previous publications, does the manuscript still provide sufficient novelty to justify publication? Does the manuscript demonstrate originality, depth of knowledge, and significant scholarly contribution? To what extent does the manuscript advance scientific discourse or contribute to knowledge in its field? Are the theoretical frameworks and references appropriate and aligned with the research focus?
-
Methodology: Is the data collection method described clearly and accurately? Does the manuscript adequately address the research questions or objectives? If new methods are introduced, are they explained in sufficient detail to be replicated?
-
Results and Discussion: Are the results presented clearly and logically? Has the data been analyzed appropriately? Does the discussion adequately interpret the findings and connect them to existing literature?
-
Conclusion: Does the conclusion provide a concise summary of findings and recommendations? Are the conclusions consistent with the stated objectives and results? Does the conclusion avoid unnecessary repetition of results or discussion? Are the recommendations relevant and logically connected to the study?
-
Tables and Figures: Do the tables and figures support the manuscript’s content effectively? Are they presented clearly and appropriately labeled? Are the sources of tables and figures properly acknowledged?
-
References: Are all in-text citations included in the reference list and formatted according to APA style? Do the references predominantly consist of recent works (at least 80% from journal articles within the last 5 years, and up to 20% from books, theses, or other relevant sources)?
-
Writing Style: Is the manuscript written in clear, grammatically correct, and engaging English? Is the writing style appropriate for an academic publication?
-
Final Review: The reviewer’s assessment should be provided through the Review Form sent by the Editorial Secretary. Reviewers are required to complete all sections marked with an asterisk. At the end of the review, reviewers must provide one of the following recommendations:
- Accepted – The manuscript is suitable for publication.
- Accepted with Minor Revisions – The manuscript is acceptable, provided minor revisions are made.
- Accepted with Major Revisions – The manuscript requires substantial revisions (e.g., additional data analysis, refinement of theory, or restructuring of sections) before it can be reconsidered.
- Rejected – The manuscript is not suitable for publication, usually due to fundamental weaknesses.
Upon completion of the review, please provide your identity in the designated columns of the review form.
Screening for Plagiarism
All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism. The maximum plagiarism limit is 25%. All authors are advised to use plagiarism detection software to check for similarity. The editors check articles in this journal for plagiarism using Turnitin software.
