Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Buletin Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Haluoleo undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and scientific integrity of the published research. This journal uses a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. This process is carried out by experts in the relevant field, with assessments focusing on scientific value, originality, methodological validity, and suitability for the journal's scope.

Each manuscript submitted on a specific topic will have at least two independent reviewers. In addition, authors may propose potential reviewers, but the final decision on their appointment remains with the editorial board. If there are only two reviewers, the first reviewer's opinion will be the primary consideration for the editor in making a decision. If there are three reviewers, the decision will be made based on the agreement of at least two of them. The single-round review process usually takes reviewers two weeks to complete.

Prospective reviewers are selected based on their academic reputation, as demonstrated by the number and quality of their international scientific publications. In the next stage, the editor sends an invitation letter to prospective reviewers. After the prospective reviewers express their willingness, the editor creates a reviewer account in the Open Journal Systems (OJS) and sends the manuscript for review.

After the review process is complete, the editor can make minor edits to the manuscript without changing its substance and scientific content. Authors must ensure that the articles submitted are original works and are not currently under consideration by other journals or publishers. The entire review process is conducted through a double-blind peer review system and managed by the editor using OJS.

1. Initial Screening: After the manuscript is received, the editorial board conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript is within the scope and focus of the journal and complies with the author guidelines. Manuscripts with a similarity level exceeding 30% will be rejected at this stage. The editorial board also checks the writing format, citation style, and fulfillment of other administrative requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet the criteria will be returned to the author for revision. Manuscripts that pass this stage will proceed to the peer review process.
2. Reviewer Assignment: The editorial board appoints two to three independent reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field and come from institutions other than that of the corresponding author. The identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential to ensure objectivity. The editor sends invitations to potential reviewers and assesses their suitability based on scientific competence, research experience, and potential conflicts of interest. The reviewer assignment process is usually completed within two weeks.
3. Review Process: Reviewers assess manuscripts based on scientific quality, originality, methodological validity, and relevance to the field of science. Reviewers are given two weeks to complete their review and provide constructive feedback to the author. Recommendations may include: accepted without revision, minor revision, major revision, or rejected.
4. Editorial Decision: The editor-in-chief makes the final decision—accepted, rejected, or revised—based on the reviewers' evaluation and the manuscript's suitability for publication. If there are significant differences between reviewers, the editor may appoint a third reviewer to provide additional consideration. All decisions and comments are communicated to the author through an online system. The average time from submission to first decision is one month, while the time from acceptance to publication is approximately two to four weeks.
5. Revision Process: If revisions are required, authors must respond to all reviewer comments systematically. The revision deadline is two weeks for minor revisions and four weeks for major revisions. Manuscripts undergoing major revisions will be sent back to the same reviewers for re-evaluation, while minor revisions can be approved directly by the editor.
6. Publication Stage: Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, authors are asked to submit a final version that will be edited and formatted according to Buletin Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Haluoleo standards before publication.

This peer review process ensures that all manuscripts published by Buletin Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Haluoleo meet the highest standards of scientific integrity, research ethics, and academic quality.

Statement on Publication Ethics and Prevention of Unethical Practices in Peer Review

Buletin Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Haluoleo is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and preventing unethical practices during the peer review process. The ethical guidelines applied include:

1. Confidentiality: The peer review process is confidential. Editors, reviewers, and related parties are required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript content and not disclose details of the evaluation process.
2. Objectivity and Impartiality: Reviews are conducted objectively based on scientific quality without personal, institutional, or ideological bias. I think feedback must be constructive.
3. Timeliness: Buletin Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Haluoleo is committed to conducting peer reviews on time. Editors and reviewers are expected to complete the process within a reasonable time frame and to report any delays immediately.
4. Transparency and Accountability: All editorial decisions are based on reasoned reviewer comments and editor expertise. All stages are recorded transparently to ensure accountability.
5. Conflict of Interest: Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If any exist, they will be replaced to ensure unbiased evaluation.
6. Prevention of Ethical Violations: Editors and reviewers must be alert to indications of plagiarism, fabrication, or data manipulation. So that you know, violations will be immediately followed up on in accordance with the procedures.
7. Recognition of Peer Reviewers: Buletin Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Haluoleo values the contributions of peer reviewers and gives due recognition to their dedication to maintaining the quality of publications.

By applying these principles, Buletin Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Haluoleo is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and credibility of the peer-review process, ensuring that only high-quality scientific works are published.