Peer Review Process

Hambaruan Journal applies a rigorous and structured peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, and scientific integrity of all submitted manuscripts.

1. Initial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation conducted by the Editorial Team, focusing on:

  • Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope

  • Compliance with formatting and submission guidelines

  • Similarity level (plagiarism check)

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or directly rejected.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Eligible manuscripts will be processed through a double-blind peer review system, where:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers

Each manuscript will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers selected based on their expertise and research domain.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following components:

  • Originality, novelty, and contribution to the field

  • Clarity of research objectives and theoretical foundation

  • Appropriateness and transparency of research methodology

  • Quality of data presentation (tables, figures, statistical outputs)

  • Depth and relevance of analysis and discussion

  • Completeness and currency of references

  • Quality of academic writing and organization

Constructive comments are expected to support authors in improving their manuscript.

4. Review Decision Recommendation

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept without revision

  2. Accept with minor revisions

  3. Accept with major revisions

  4. Revise and resubmit

  5. Reject

The Editor-in-Chief retains the right to make the final decision, based on reviewer feedback and editorial assessment.

5. Revision Process

If revisions are required:

  • Authors must submit a revised version along with a detailed response-to-reviewers document

  • Changes must be clearly indicated (highlighted or tracked)

  • Each reviewer comment must be answered clearly and systematically

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the same reviewers or evaluated directly by the editorial team.

6. Final Decision

The final editorial decision is based on:

  • Reviewer recommendations

  • Quality of revisions submitted

  • Contribution and relevance to the field

  • Adherence to ethical, academic, and formatting guidelines

Accepted manuscripts will proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, and online publication.

7. Estimated Duration of Review

The review process typically follows this timeline:

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks

  • Peer review phase: 3–6 weeks

  • Author revision stage: 1–4 weeks

  • Final evaluation and publication: 1–2 weeks

The timeline may vary depending on manuscript complexity and responsiveness of the authors and reviewers.

8. Confidentiality

Throughout the review process:

  • All submitted materials are kept strictly confidential

  • Reviewers must not distribute, copy, or use manuscript information for personal gain

  • Communication between reviewers and editors is confidential