LITERATUR: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra is committed to publishing original, high-quality, and ethically sound scholarship in language, literature, and language and literature education. Every manuscript is evaluated through an objective, transparent, and well-documented peer-review process conducted entirely through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS). This policy applies equally to all manuscripts, including those submitted by editors, editorial board members, and authors affiliated with UIN Sultanah Nahrasiyah Lhokseumawe.
The journal applies a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Authors must remove all identifying information from the manuscript file, including names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and document properties, before submission. Editors ensure that review reports sent to authors contain no information that may reveal the reviewers' identities.
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in linguistics, literature, language education, or related fields, as demonstrated by their academic qualifications and publication record in reputable national and international journals. Reviewer profiles can be verified through scholarly databases such as SINTA, Scopus, Google Scholar, or ORCID.
The journal involves reviewers from various institutions in Indonesia and abroad to ensure objective, diverse, and high-quality evaluation. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers with expertise relevant to its topic and methodology. The journal prioritizes reviewers who are not affiliated with the authors' institutions and have no conflict of interest with the authors. The names and affiliations of the reviewers are listed on the journal website.
Submission. Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's OJS using the official journal template. Submissions sent through email or other unofficial channels are not processed.
Initial screening. The editor examines whether the manuscript falls within the journal's focus and scope, follows the template and Author Guidelines, has a similarity level of no more than 20%, presents a clear scholarly contribution, and complies with the journal's publication ethics, authorship criteria, and AI disclosure policy. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined without external review (desk rejection).
Peer review. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two reviewers. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using the journal's review form and may provide additional comments directly in the manuscript file. The journal aims to complete the first round of review within four to eight weeks after the manuscript is assigned to reviewers.
Editorial decision. The editor considers the reviewers' reports and makes a decision, which is communicated to the authors through OJS together with the reviewers' comments.
Revision. Authors revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' and editor's comments within the period set by the editor in OJS.
Re-review. Revised manuscripts are checked by the editor and, when necessary, returned to the reviewers to verify that all comments have been adequately addressed.
Final decision and publication. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading by the authors, and layout before publication in the June or December issue.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects.
Substance of the article
Presentation and writing style
Reviewers are expected to provide substantive, detailed, and constructive comments that help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts. Suggestions to cite particular works must be based solely on scholarly relevance.
Based on the review reports and the editor's academic assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the handling editor based on scholarly merit, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope. When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification from the reviewers or appoint an additional reviewer.
Authors must address every comment from the reviewers and editor and upload the following through OJS:
Manuscripts whose revisions are not submitted within the period set by the editor, without prior notice from the authors, may be withdrawn from the review process. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.
All stages of the review process, including reviewer assignments, review reports, author revisions, editorial decisions, and correspondence, are conducted and archived in the journal's OJS. This ensures that the review process for every published article is traceable, accountable, and verifiable.
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, discuss, or use any part of a manuscript outside the review process. Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, data, or review materials to generative AI platforms or other external services that do not guarantee confidentiality and data protection.
Reviewers must decline a review invitation if they have a conflict of interest with the authors, such as the same institutional affiliation, recent collaboration or co-authorship, a supervisory or personal relationship, or direct academic competition. Editors who have a conflict of interest must withdraw from handling the manuscript, which will then be reassigned to another editor. Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled by an independent editor and reviewed by reviewers without any conflict of interest.
If reviewers or editors identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, citation manipulation, inappropriate authorship, or other forms of misconduct, the review process may be suspended while the case is examined in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Authors may submit a written appeal against an editorial decision if they believe that a significant factual, procedural, or ethical error affected the decision. Appeals must respond specifically to the reviewers' and editor's comments and provide relevant scholarly evidence. Appeals based solely on disagreement with academic judgment will not normally be considered. Whenever possible, appeals are examined by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.
