Peer Review Policy

Palestine Issues on Indonesian Society applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of all manuscripts submitted for publication. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process, insofar as technically possible.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editorial Office to determine whether it:

  • falls within the journal's focus and scope;

  • meets the journal's submission and formatting requirements;

  • demonstrates sufficient academic quality and originality;

  • complies with relevant publication ethics and research integrity standards; and

  • is suitable for further peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall outside its scope may be rejected at the editorial screening stage without external peer review.

Where appropriate, manuscripts may also be screened using plagiarism-detection software and other available tools to identify substantial textual overlap or potential research-integrity concerns.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • subject-matter expertise;

  • relevant academic and research experience;

  • publication record where appropriate;

  • independence from the authors and their institutions; and

  • absence of actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

The journal may invite reviewers from different institutions, countries, and disciplinary backgrounds when appropriate to strengthen the diversity and quality of the review process.

3. Double-Blind Review

The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, in which:

  • reviewers do not receive information identifying the authors; and

  • authors do not receive information identifying the reviewers.

Authors are therefore expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that does not unnecessarily reveal their identities or institutional affiliations within the anonymized manuscript.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to preserve reviewer and author anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized research fields.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively, with particular attention to:

  1. Originality and significance – whether the manuscript provides an original and meaningful contribution to existing scholarship;

  2. Theoretical and conceptual framework – the adequacy and relevance of the theoretical or conceptual foundation;

  3. Research methodology – the appropriateness, rigor, transparency, and validity of the research methods;

  4. Analysis and interpretation – the quality, coherence, and depth of the analysis;

  5. Use of evidence and references – the adequacy, relevance, and credibility of supporting evidence and scholarly literature;

  6. Structure and clarity – the organization, academic writing quality, and logical presentation of the manuscript;

  7. Ethical considerations – compliance with relevant research ethics and integrity requirements; and

  8. Contribution to the field – the manuscript's potential contribution to scholarship on Palestine-related issues and Indonesian society.

Reviewers may recommend revisions where weaknesses can reasonably be addressed by the authors.

5. Review Recommendations

Reviewers are normally asked to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept – the manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive revisions;

  • Minor Revision – limited revisions are required before publication;

  • Major Revision – substantial revisions are required and the manuscript should normally undergo further evaluation; or

  • Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication or is unsuitable for the journal.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the Editorial Board.

6. Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the Editorial Office. Authors should also provide a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed or, where the authors disagree with a recommendation, provide a clear academic justification.

Manuscripts receiving major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by new reviewers at the editor's discretion.

The number of revision rounds is determined by the editors according to the nature and extent of the required revisions.

7. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and contribution of the manuscript. Decisions should not be influenced by the author's nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, institutional affiliation, political views, or other personal characteristics.

The journal recognizes that Palestine-related issues may involve contested political, legal, religious, and historical perspectives. Peer review is therefore conducted on the basis of academic quality and evidence rather than political agreement or disagreement with the author's conclusions.

Editors and reviewers must maintain professional independence and avoid allowing personal, political, ideological, or institutional interests to compromise the evaluation of a manuscript.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, share, reproduce, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal or professional purposes without appropriate authorization.

Reviewers must not distribute manuscripts or discuss their contents with others unless explicitly authorized by the journal.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

A reviewer should decline an invitation to review if, for example, the reviewer:

  • has a close personal or professional relationship with one of the authors;

  • has recently collaborated with the author(s);

  • is affiliated with the same institution as the author(s);

  • has a financial or other interest that could affect the evaluation;

  • has a direct academic or professional competition with the authors; or

  • believes that they cannot provide an impartial assessment.

Editors may replace reviewers where a conflict of interest is identified.

10. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide fair, objective, and constructive assessments;

  • evaluate manuscripts within their area of expertise;

  • identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited where applicable;

  • identify potential methodological, ethical, or research-integrity concerns;

  • maintain strict confidentiality;

  • disclose conflicts of interest;

  • complete reviews within the agreed timeframe; and

  • avoid making discriminatory, hostile, defamatory, or personally directed comments.

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript rather than the author and should provide sufficient academic justification for their recommendations.

11. Authors' Responsibilities

Authors are expected to respond professionally and substantively to reviewer comments. Authors may disagree with reviewer recommendations, but such disagreements should be supported by clear academic reasoning and evidence.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. The revised manuscript remains subject to editorial assessment and, where necessary, additional peer review.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant procedural error, misunderstanding of the manuscript, or demonstrable breach of the journal's review policy may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office.

Appeals must provide a clear and evidence-based explanation of the grounds for reconsideration. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the academic judgment of reviewers will normally not be considered sufficient grounds for overturning a decision.

The journal will also investigate credible complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial decisions, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, or other aspects of the peer review process.

13. Reviewer Anonymity and Recognition

Reviewer identities are normally kept confidential. The journal may provide formal acknowledgment or certificates of reviewing activity where appropriate, provided that such recognition does not compromise the confidentiality of the peer review process.

14. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, reviewer evaluations, ethical considerations, and relevance to the journal.

The journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript even when reviewer recommendations are favorable if significant concerns regarding research integrity, ethical compliance, originality, or suitability for publication are identified.

The journal is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, rigorous, timely, and academically independent peer review process that supports the advancement of high-quality scholarship on Palestine-related issues and their relationship to Indonesian society.