Moestopo International Review on Social, Humanities, and Sciences (MIRSHuS) applies a double-anonymous peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, validity, and relevance of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Under this review model, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and are expected to provide objective, constructive, and confidential evaluations.

All scholarly manuscripts submitted to MIRSHuS undergo the following editorial and peer-review stages.

1. Submission and Administrative Check

After submission through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS), the editorial office conducts an initial administrative check to ensure that the manuscript:

• complies with the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript template;
• falls within the Aims, Focus and Scope of MIRSHuS;
• contains the required manuscript components;
• complies with the journal's authorship and ethical requirements;
• does not contain identifying information that may compromise the double-anonymous review process; and
• meets the journal's basic standards for academic writing and referencing.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further editorial assessment.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the administrative check are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor.

The initial editorial assessment considers:

• relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
• originality and significance of the research;
• clarity of the research problem and objectives;
• adequacy of theoretical or conceptual foundations;
• appropriateness of research methodology;
• quality of academic writing;
• ethical compliance; and
• potential contribution to the relevant field of study.

The journal may conduct a similarity check as part of its initial assessment.

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage without external peer review if it is clearly outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum scholarly standards, contains serious ethical concerns, or is otherwise unsuitable for publication in MIRSHuS.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not be directly involved in the editorial decision for the manuscript and should not have relationships with the authors or the research that could compromise the independence and objectivity of the review.

The editor is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers when permitted by the journal; however, the editorial team is under no obligation to use the suggested reviewers. The final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the editor.

4. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

MIRSHuS applies a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review process, in which:

• reviewers do not know the identities of the authors;
• authors do not know the identities of the reviewers; and
• reviewer reports are treated as confidential editorial documents.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively.

The review generally considers:

• originality and novelty;
• relevance and significance of the study;
• theoretical or conceptual foundation;
• appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
• validity of data analysis and interpretation;
• quality and clarity of the results and discussion;
• contribution to knowledge, practice, or policy;
• appropriateness of conclusions;
• relevance and adequacy of references;
• compliance with research and publication ethics; and
• overall academic quality of the manuscript.

Where supplementary materials form an integral part of the research and are provided to reviewers, they may also be considered during the peer-review process.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide written comments and recommendations to assist the editor in making an editorial decision.

Reviewer recommendations may include:

1. Accept Submission – the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial revision;
2. Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions before further consideration;
3. Major Revision – substantial changes are required and the revised manuscript may require further review;
4. Resubmit for Review – substantial reworking is required before the manuscript can be reconsidered; or
5. Decline Submission – the manuscript is not suitable for publication in MIRSHuS.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the responsible editor.

6. Revision by Authors

When revisions are required, authors must respond carefully to the reviewers' and editor's comments and submit:

• a revised version of the manuscript; and
• a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Where an author disagrees with a reviewer recommendation, the author should provide a clear and academically justified explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Major revisions may undergo additional rounds of peer review.

7. Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the editor responsible for handling the manuscript, taking into consideration the reviewers' recommendations, the authors' responses, the quality of the revised manuscript, and the journal's editorial standards.

Reviewers provide recommendations but do not make the final publication decision.

Where reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the editor may:

• evaluate the differences between the reviewer reports;
• request clarification from the reviewers;
• appoint an additional independent reviewer; or
• make an editorial decision based on the available evidence and the journal's editorial standards.

The possible final editorial decisions are:

• Accepted;
• Revision Required;
• Resubmit for Review; or
• Rejected.

Acceptance is never guaranteed at the time of initial submission.

8. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, and contribution of the manuscript.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity.

A reviewer should decline a review invitation if a conflict of interest exists, including personal, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or financial relationships that could reasonably influence the review.

If an editor has a conflict of interest concerning a submitted manuscript, the manuscript must be assigned to another qualified editor who has no relevant conflict.

9. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors, Editorial Board Members, or Reviewers

MIRSHuS permits submissions from members of its editorial team, editorial board, and reviewer community; however, such manuscripts receive no preferential treatment and must undergo the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions.

When an editor, editorial board member, or reviewer is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript:

• the author concerned must have no involvement in the editorial handling of the manuscript;
• the manuscript must be handled by an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest;
• the author must not participate in the selection of reviewers;
• the author must not have access to confidential reviewer identities or reports beyond those normally provided to authors; and
• the final decision must be made independently of the author concerned.

The journal seeks to minimize editorial endogeny and to maintain independence and transparency throughout the editorial process.

10. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and peer-review materials are treated as confidential.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal advantage or for purposes unrelated to the review process.

Reviewer identities remain confidential under the journal's double-anonymous peer-review model.

11. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments;
• evaluate manuscripts fairly without personal criticism of the authors;
• maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials;
• disclose conflicts of interest;
• inform the editor if they are unable to complete the review;
• identify relevant published work that may not have been appropriately cited;
• alert the editor to possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or other ethical concerns; and
• avoid using information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.

Manuscripts, figures, tables, datasets, or other confidential submission materials must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence tools or other external systems where confidentiality, intellectual property, or data security cannot be assured.

Editorial decisions and peer-review assessments must remain under meaningful human responsibility and oversight.

Any permitted use of automated tools by the journal must not replace the independent academic judgment of reviewers and editors.

13. Special Issues

When MIRSHuS publishes a special issue, thematic issue, or content managed with the assistance of a Guest Editor, the same standards of editorial assessment, research integrity, and independent peer review applied to regular issues must also apply to the special issue.

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the scholarly and editorial integrity of all special issues.

Guest Editors must be appropriately qualified and must disclose potential conflicts of interest. Their editorial activities remain subject to oversight by the Editor-in-Chief or designated members of the Editorial Board.

Manuscripts submitted by Guest Editors themselves must be handled independently, and Guest Editors must not participate in the selection of reviewers or editorial decisions concerning their own manuscripts.

14. Exceptions to Peer Review

Original Research Articles, Review Articles, Systematic Literature Reviews, Conceptual or Theoretical Articles, and Policy-oriented Research Articles are subject to the journal's peer-review process.

Editorial materials that do not constitute research articles, such as editorial notes, corrections, retractions, or journal announcements, may not undergo external peer review. When such an exception applies, the type of editorial assessment will be clearly indicated where appropriate.

15. Review Timeline

MIRSHuS is committed to conducting peer review as efficiently as possible while maintaining the quality and integrity of the evaluation process.

The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revision rounds required, and the responsiveness of the authors.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or a fixed time from submission to publication. Authors will be informed of significant delays in the editorial or peer-review process.

16. Final Publication

Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage, which may include copyediting, language editing, layout, proofreading, metadata preparation, and final publication.

Acceptance following peer review does not exempt a manuscript from necessary editorial or production corrections.

The dates of manuscript receipt, revision, acceptance, and publication should be displayed in the published article to provide transparency regarding the editorial process.