All manuscripts submitted to Dinamika Penelitian: Media Komunikasi Penelitian Sosial Keagamaan are evaluated through an initial editorial assessment followed by a double-anonymous peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Each manuscript that passes editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise.
The complete editorial and review process normally takes approximately 4–12 weeks, depending on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of revisions required.
The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the journal’s online submission system. Before submission, authors must ensure that the manuscript complies with the journal’s Focus and Scope, follows the required manuscript structure, and has been prepared according to the Author Guidelines.
Authors must remove their names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and other information that may reveal their identities from the manuscript file. Author information should only be entered in the submission metadata.
After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is relevant to the journal’s focus on socio-religious transformation and community development in Muslim societies. The editor also evaluates the manuscript’s originality, scholarly contribution, methodological quality, language, structure, ethical compliance, and conformity with the journal template.
At this stage, the manuscript is examined through the journal’s similarity screening procedure. The similarity score is treated as an initial indicator rather than the sole basis for a decision. Editors evaluate the source, extent, location, and nature of matched material before deciding whether the manuscript should proceed, be revised, or be rejected.
Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, contain serious methodological weaknesses, fail to comply with publication ethics, or do not meet the journal’s minimum academic standards may be declined without external review.
A manuscript that passes the initial assessment is evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned handling editor. The editor considers whether the manuscript presents a clear research problem, sufficient originality, appropriate methodology, and a meaningful contribution to socio-religious scholarship.
The editor may reject the manuscript at this stage when it does not demonstrate sufficient scholarly significance or readiness for external review. Manuscripts considered suitable are forwarded to reviewers whose expertise corresponds to the topic and methodology of the study.
The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers based on their academic expertise, publication record, methodological competence, and familiarity with the manuscript’s research area.
Reviewers must not have personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships that could influence their judgement. The selection of reviewers follows the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, and conflict-of-interest management described in the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Invited reviewers assess whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and whether they can complete the review within the requested period. They must also consider any circumstances that could create an actual or perceived conflict of interest.
A reviewer who lacks appropriate expertise, has a conflict of interest, or cannot complete the review within the specified time should decline the invitation. Where appropriate, the reviewer may recommend another qualified expert.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript objectively, constructively, and confidentially. Their assessment covers the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope, originality of the study, clarity of the research problem, appropriateness of the methodology, quality of data analysis, validity of the interpretation, coherence of the discussion, strength of the conclusion, and significance of the theoretical or practical contribution.
Reviewers also examine the adequacy of the references, ethical reporting, transparency of the research process, and consistency between the research objectives, findings, discussion, and conclusion. Detailed assessment criteria are available in the journal’s Reviewer Guidelines.
After completing the assessment, each reviewer submits confidential comments to the editor, constructive comments for the authors, and one of the following recommendations:
The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports and determines whether the recommendations are sufficiently clear, evidence-based, and relevant to the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations serve as expert advice and do not automatically determine the editorial decision.
When the reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may assess the manuscript independently, request clarification from the reviewers, or invite an additional reviewer. The editor may also disregard comments that are inappropriate, unsupported, discriminatory, or unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript.
The corresponding author receives the editorial decision together with anonymised reviewer comments. Authors invited to revise must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
Where an author disagrees with a recommendation, the response should provide a clear academic justification. Revised manuscripts requiring substantial changes may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by an additional reviewer.
Authors are expected to submit revisions within the period specified by the editor. When additional time is required, the corresponding author should contact the editorial office before the deadline. Failure to submit the revision or communicate with the editor may result in the submission being closed.
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or responsible editor after considering the manuscript’s academic quality, reviewer reports, author responses, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
A manuscript accepted through peer review proceeds to copyediting, language editing, layout preparation, metadata verification, author proofreading, and final publication. Acceptance following peer review does not exempt the manuscript from further editorial, technical, legal, or research-integrity checks.
The journal reserves the right to postpone or cancel publication when significant ethical, legal, authorship, data-integrity, or publication-integrity concerns are identified before publication.
Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant procedural error may submit a reasoned request according to the journal’s Appeals and Complaints Policy.
All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished research information must be treated as confidential. Editors and reviewers must not share manuscript content or use unpublished information for personal, institutional, financial, or professional benefit.
Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s focus. Decisions are not influenced by the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, ethnicity, seniority, political views, or personal relationships.
Focus and Scope Peer Review Process Publication Ethics Plagiarism CheckAbstracting and Indexing Open Access Policy Author Fees Copyright Notice Article Retraction Withdrawal of Manuscript Appeals and Complain Disclaimer
Jurnal Dinamika Penelitian published by LP2M UIN SATU Tulungagung, Jl. Mayor Sujadi Timur No. 46 is under license of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
Copyright © 2020 Jurnal Dinamika Penelitian: Media Komunikasi Penelitian Sosial Keagamaan, ISSN: 1412-2669 (p) | 1412-2669 (e)
Paltform & Workflow by OJS/PKP | Statistik Kunjungan
