Peer Review

Peer Review Policy

Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor to determine whether they meet the basic requirements of the CIVICA Journal and the submission guidelines. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s style and policies will undergo peer review. The CIVICA Journal is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal involving multiple expert reviewers in the fields of Education (Civics & Humanities) and relevant social science disciplines. The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance is made entirely by the Editor based on the reviewers’ comments. Manuscripts will be sent to two reviewers based on their expertise and specialization or historical experience in reviewing manuscripts. CIVICA Journal has a review form that allows the same article to be reviewed by at least two reviewers. The editorial board then makes a decision based on the reviewers’ comments or suggestions. Reviewers provide their assessments of originality, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the fields of Pancasila and Citizenship Education and the social sciences based on the CIVICA Journal Review Form.

 

The CIVICA Journal has four types of decisions:

  1. Accepted as is. The manuscript has been accepted without revisions because it meets the journal’s quality standards, including originality, research validity, clarity, and relevance.
  2. Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript has been conditionally accepted, with a request for minor revisions (e.g., grammar, formatting, or references). The author is given a specific timeframe to make the revisions before publication.
  3. Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript has been conditionally accepted but requires substantial revisions (e.g., methodology, data analysis, or argument structure). The author(s) must revise the manuscript in accordance with the guidelines and within the specified timeframe prior to publication.
  4. Rejected: The manuscript was not accepted for reasons such as:
  • The topic is outside the scope or purpose of the journal
  • Significant technical issues with the method or presentation of the data
  • Lack of clarity or poor presentation structure
  • The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic standards.