PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Urban Sociology (JUS) are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The entire process is managed through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) and follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Review Stages

No. Stage Description Estimated time
1 Submission The author submits the full manuscript and an anonymized version through OJS, using the JUS Template 2027. –
2 Initial editorial screening The editor checks the manuscript's fit with the journal's aims and scope, its compliance with the Author Guidelines and template, and its similarity index using Turnitin (maximum 15%, excluding references). Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are returned to the authors or declined without review. 1–2 weeks
3 Double-blind peer review The editor assigns at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers assess the manuscript using the journal's review form and submit their recommendation through OJS. 4–8 weeks
4 Editorial decision The editor considers the reviewers' reports and makes a decision. When reviewers disagree substantially, the editor may invite an additional reviewer. 1–2 weeks
5 Revision Authors revise the manuscript and submit a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation. 2–4 weeks
6 Final decision The editor verifies the revision (and, where necessary, consults the reviewers again), after which the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection. 2–4 weeks
7 Copyediting, layout, and publication Accepted manuscripts are copyedited and typeset. Authors check the galley proof before the article is published online with a DOI in the next available issue (April or October). 2–4 weeks

The time from submission to first decision is approximately 6–12 weeks, and the overall time from submission to publication is approximately 3–6 months. Actual times may vary depending on reviewer availability, the extent of revision required, and the issue schedule.

2. Editorial Decisions

  • Accept Submission: the manuscript is accepted without further revision.
  • Revisions Required (minor revision): the manuscript requires minor changes, which are checked by the editor.
  • Resubmit for Review (major revision): the manuscript requires substantial revision and will be re-evaluated by the reviewers.
  • Decline Submission: the manuscript is rejected because it falls outside the scope, has serious methodological or ethical problems, or does not make a sufficient contribution.

Authors who do not submit their revision within the stated deadline without notifying the editor may have their submission withdrawn.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. Relevance to the aims and scope of JUS;
  2. Originality and novelty of the research, and clarity of the research gap;
  3. Strength of the theoretical framework and its use in the analysis;
  4. Appropriateness and rigor of the research methods, including research ethics;
  5. Depth of analysis and discussion in relation to previous studies;
  6. Significance of the theoretical and practical contribution;
  7. Consistency between the title, abstract, findings, and conclusion;
  8. Quality, currency, and relevance of the references;
  9. Clarity of writing and compliance with the Author Guidelines.

4. Reviewer Guidelines

  1. Accepting an invitation. Reviewers respond to invitations through OJS within the requested timeframe. Before accepting, reviewers ensure that the manuscript falls within their expertise and that they have no conflict of interest with the authors or the work.
  2. Timeliness. Reviewers who are unable to complete the review on time, or who discover a conflict of interest after accepting, should inform the editor immediately so that the deadline can be extended or the assignment withdrawn.
  3. Confidentiality. Manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers must not share them, use their content for their own research, or upload them to generative AI tools.
  4. Writing the review. Reviewers begin with a brief summary of the manuscript and their overall assessment, followed by specific, numbered comments grouped as major and minor issues. Comments should be constructive, objective, and supported by clear arguments.
  5. Comments to the editor. Concerns about scope, possible plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical issues are reported confidentially in the "Comments to the Editor" field, not in the comments to the authors.
  6. Recommendation. Reviewers select a recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Decline) and submit the review using the "Submit Review" button. The final decision rests with the editor.

5. Suggested Reviewers and Appeals

Authors may suggest potential reviewers who have no conflict of interest with them, but the final choice of reviewers rests with the editor. Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editor-in-Chief at urbansociology@uwks.ac.id, as described in the Publication Ethics page.