Review Process

Review Policy:

  1. The manuscripts will be reviewed by 2 (two) reviewers at least.
  2. Editorial Board protect all the confidential materials that submitted to journal and all communications between authors and reviewers.

  3. Editorial Board will check plagiarism using Ithenticate.  If there is a plagiarism indication, Editor can reject it.

  4. The manuscripts will be reviewed using a double blind peer review method which is both the author and the reviewer doesnt know each identity

A Brief Review Process:
  1. The editor receives the manuscript from the author
  2. The editor evaluates all manuscript and can reject them if they do not meet the criteria (Pre-review)

  3. The editor send manuscript to the reviewer with the review form

  4. The reviewer send back the review form to Editor with necessary revision manuscript

  5. The Editor decision (rejected, need a major revision, needs a minor revision, or is accepted)

  6. Confirmation to the author. If there is revised, the authors revise the manuscript and must be submitted to the editor on scheduled. Returns for more than one month will be considered as as a new submission.

  7. Flow Chart Review

Pre-review process:

  1. Is the manuscript content according to the focus and scope of the journal?

  2. Is the content of abstract, keywords, and/or figures or tables incomplete?

  3. Does the language meet the standard of scientific language?

  4. Is the presented data insufficient?

  5. Is there any novelty?

  6. Is the writing based on the Author Guidelines and Manuscript Template?

  7. Is the manuscript indicated falsification, fabrication, plagiarism?

  8. Is the research method unclear?

  9. Do 80% of Bibliography contains primarily reference (journal)? Do 80% of Bibliography references contains with the last 10 years for books and the last 5 years for the journals?

Review Process:

  1. Title: Is the title effective, clear, conscise, and informative?

  2. Abstract: Does the abstract contain objectives, methods, important research findings, and conclusions?

  3. Introduction: Are the introduction arrangements written in an effective, clear and organized? Does the introduction contain a state of the art overview of previous studies/researches? Does the introduction contain clear gap analysis statements to show the new contributions and show differences from previous studies? Does the introduction contain clear and specific research objectives?

  4. Research Methods: Is the methodology description written clearly and completely? Is the research methodology appropriate and successful to resolve research questions? Does the author need to put other materials in supporting research data?

  5. Results and Discussion: Do the research data and discussion have a logically connection to conclusions? Are tables, figures, and schemes clear? Are additional experimental data or additional analysis needed? Is there a comparison between the results of this study with previous studies which presented in introduction?

  6. Conclusions: Are conclusions valid based on research findings? Do they answer the research objectives? Are conclusions supported by research and analysis data? Do the sentences contain repetition? It should be noted that conclusions are different from Abstract. 

  7. References: Are the references relevant to the discussion? Are all citation sources in the text written in footnotes?

  8. Overall comment: Is this manuscript original, shows novelty or new contributions, and has significance to develope scientific fields in the focus and scope of the journal Societas Dei?

  9. Do the manuscripts need to be revised (major or minor)? Is it good to publish?

Post-review process:

  1. Does the manuscript still contain of the ethic violate element in Publications (plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, or being reviewed in another journal)? The tolerance limit in Ithenticate is a 25% maximum of all manuscript contents in references and citations sentences.

  2. Are there the manuscript parts that have not been corrected according to the corrections of the two reviewers?

  3. Does the language aspect show any improvement?

  4. Is the reference still not based on Author Guideline?