The peer review process at OPTIMUM: Indonesian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities is designed to ensure the quality, academic integrity, and relevance of the research published in the journal. Our peer review system follows a rigorous, transparent, and unbiased procedure in line with international best practices to maintain the highest standards of scholarly publishing.

The following outlines the peer review process:

1. Submission

• Authors submit their manuscripts online through the journal’s submission system. All submitted manuscripts are initially screened by the editorial team for compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and basic quality checks.
• If a manuscript meets the basic requirements, it is then sent for peer review. If not, the manuscript may be returned to the author for revisions or rejected outright.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

• The Editor-in-Chief, along with the editorial board, conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine its relevance to the journal’s scope, significance of the research, and the overall quality of writing.
• If the manuscript is deemed suitable for review, the editor will select two or more reviewers with expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. If the manuscript does not meet the criteria, the editor may reject it without further review.

3. Selection of Reviewers

• Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant field of study, as well as their prior experience in academic publishing. Both internal and external experts are invited to review the manuscript.
• Reviewers are selected with the aim of maintaining objectivity and minimizing conflicts of interest. If a potential conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer is excluded from the review process.

4. Peer Review

• OPTIMUM uses a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.
• Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria, including but not limited to:
  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Theoretical and methodological rigor
  • Relevance to the field of social sciences and humanities
  • Clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript
  • Quality and accuracy of references and citations
  • Ethical considerations, including data integrity and plagiarism
• The reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommendations for improvement, which may include suggestions for additional experiments, data analysis, or revisions to the manuscript.

5. Editor’s Decision

• Based on the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or minimal revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor revisions, and the authors are invited to submit a revised version for further evaluation.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes, and the authors must address the reviewers’ concerns before resubmitting the manuscript for further review.
  • Reject: The manuscript is rejected if it does not meet the required academic standards or if major issues cannot be addressed through revisions.

6. Revision Process

• If revisions are required, the authors are given a set period to make the necessary changes and resubmit the manuscript. Authors must provide a point-by-point response to each of the reviewers' comments to ensure that the revisions address all concerns.
• After resubmission, the revised manuscript may undergo another round of review, either with the original reviewers or with new reviewers, depending on the extent of the changes.
• The editor evaluates the revised manuscript and decides whether it meets the necessary criteria for publication.

7. Final Decision and Publication

• Once the manuscript has been accepted, it is prepared for publication. The author(s) may be required to submit a final version of the manuscript, ensuring it meets the formatting and style requirements of the journal.
• After the manuscript is finalized, it is scheduled for publication in the next available issue of OPTIMUM.

8. Confidentiality

• All manuscripts, reviews, and reviewer comments are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share any information related to the manuscript outside the peer review process.
• The confidentiality of the reviewers and authors is maintained throughout the process.

9. Post-Publication

• After publication, the article remains open to feedback from the academic community. Any post-publication concerns or requests for corrections, retractions, or clarifications are handled by the editorial team according to the journal's publication ethics and procedures.

---

This peer review process ensures that the manuscripts published in OPTIMUM meet the highest academic and ethical standards, contributing valuable knowledge to the social sciences and humanities fields.