Peer Review Process

1. Review Policy

Borneo Humaniora applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the objectivity, fairness, and academic quality of published articles. Under this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

All manuscripts submitted to Borneo Humaniora undergo an initial editorial screening before being considered for peer review. The journal publishes scholarly contributions in the humanities and related disciplines, including economics, theology, philosophy, law, history, philology, language, linguistics, culture, literature, arts, and psychology.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team evaluates each manuscript to determine whether it:

Falls within the journal’s focus and scope.
Follows the journal’s author guidelines and manuscript template.
Meets basic standards of academic writing, structure, and presentation.
Demonstrates sufficient originality and scholarly relevance.
Complies with publication ethics requirements.

The editorial team may conduct a similarity check using appropriate plagiarism-detection software. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected without external review.

3. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers whose expertise matches the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and ability to provide an independent assessment.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline an assignment if they cannot provide an impartial evaluation. The journal may appoint replacement reviewers when an assigned reviewer is unable to complete the review within the specified period.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

During the review process, reviewers assess the manuscript objectively and confidentially. The assessment considers, as applicable to the manuscript type:

Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope.
Originality and contribution to existing scholarship.
Clarity of research objectives, questions, and arguments.
Appropriateness of the research methods or analytical approach.
Quality and relevance of the literature review and supporting evidence.
Accuracy and coherence of the analysis, discussion, and conclusions.
Quality of academic writing, organization, citations, and references.
Compliance with publication ethics and scholarly standards.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments and clear recommendations supported by academic reasoning. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.

5. Review Timeline

The peer review process may take a maximum of 30 working days. Each reviewer is normally given a maximum of 14 working days to complete the review and submit comments and recommendations.

If a reviewer cannot complete the assessment within the allocated period, the editor may appoint a replacement reviewer to avoid unnecessary delays. The actual time required may vary depending on reviewer availability, the need for revisions, and the time taken by authors to respond to editorial requests.

6. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers’ reports and the editorial assessment, the editor makes a decision on the manuscript. Possible decisions include:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any final editorial or production requirements.
Minor Revision: The author is required to make limited revisions before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.
Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to new reviewers for further assessment.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for publication.

A positive recommendation from a reviewer does not automatically guarantee acceptance. The final decision rests with the editor, taking into account the reviewers’ commen