Peer Review Policy

Raparin Journal of Humanities (RJH)

The Raparin Journal of Humanities (RJH) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality and integrity through a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This policy outlines the principles, procedures, and ethical standards that guide the evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to RJH undergo an initial editorial screening followed by a formal double-blind peer review, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain fully anonymous. This system ensures that evaluations are based solely on the academic quality, originality, and relevance of the manuscript, free from personal bias or conflict of interest.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated section editor to determine its suitability for the journal. The editor evaluates:
• relevance to the journal’s scope in the humanities,
• academic quality and originality,
• adherence to submission guidelines and ethical standards, and
• clarity of writing and overall presentation.

Manuscripts that do not meet these basic criteria may be returned to the author without external review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are sent to two qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant discipline.
Both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to preserve objectivity and fairness.

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:
• originality and scholarly contribution,
• methodological rigor and clarity of research design,
• coherence and accuracy of analysis,
• quality of argumentation and interpretation,
• relevance to the field of humanities, and
• adherence to ethical research standards.

Reviewers submit detailed, constructive comments along with a recommendation to:
• accept,
• accept with minor revisions,
• request major revisions, or
• reject the manuscript.

4. Revision Process

If revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. The revised version may be returned to the original reviewers to ensure that all concerns have been adequately addressed. The editorial team has the final decision on whether the revision is satisfactory for publication.

5. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewers’ evaluations and editorial judgment, makes the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript. Decisions are made with full respect for academic integrity, fairness, and the scholarly value of the work.

6. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic qualifications, and ability to provide objective and constructive feedback. Reviewers are expected to:
• provide timely and unbiased assessments,
• maintain confidentiality of all materials,
• declare any conflicts of interest,
• evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit,
• identify ethical concerns, including plagiarism or data issues, and
• provide respectful, clear, and substantive comments.

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviews, and editorial decisions are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers and editors may not discuss or share any manuscript materials with others or use unpublished content for personal advantage.

8. Ethical Standards and COPE Compliance

RJH follows the ethical guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in handling peer review procedures, conflicts of interest, and alleged misconduct. Any concerns regarding ethics or integrity raised during review are investigated promptly and fairly.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a written request with clear justification. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board, but due to the integrity of the peer review process, decisions are typically final unless clear evidence of misunderstanding, procedural error, or reviewer bias is demonstrated.