Jurnal Pustaka Indonesia is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, objectivity, and transparency of scholarly publishing. All original research articles submitted to the journal undergo a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. Editorials, book reviews, corrections, and other non-research content may be evaluated through an editorial review process rather than external peer review.

1. Initial Editorial Screening
After submission, each manuscript is initially examined by the editorial team to assess:

• compliance with the journal’s author guidelines and manuscript template;
• relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
• completeness of the manuscript and supporting documents;
• originality and similarity level;
• academic quality and clarity of presentation;
• compliance with research and publication ethics.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or rejected without external review. The initial screening process normally takes approximately 7–14 working days.

2. Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, publication record, methodological expertise, and absence of conflicts of interest. Whenever possible, reviewers will not be selected from the same institution as the authors. Reviewers must declare any personal, professional, institutional, or financial conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

3. Double-Blind Review
The journal applies a double-blind peer-review system. Authors are required to remove their names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, funding information, and other identifying details from the anonymized manuscript. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following considerations:

• originality and significance of the study;
• relevance to the journal’s scope;
• clarity of the research objectives;
• adequacy of the theoretical and empirical foundations;
• appropriateness of the research methods;
• accuracy and clarity of the results;
• depth of the discussion;
• consistency between the findings and conclusions;
• ethical compliance;
• quality and relevance of the references.

Reviewers are normally given approximately 2–4 weeks to complete their evaluations. The review period may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

4. Editorial Decision
After receiving the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates the recommendations and makes one of the following decisions:

1. Accept Submission – the manuscript is accepted without substantive revision;
2. Revisions Required – the manuscript requires specific revisions before it can be considered for acceptance;
3. Resubmit for Review – substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript will undergo another round of peer review;
4. Decline Submission – the manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, ethical, methodological, or editorial standards.

Editorial decisions are based on the reviewers’ comments, the scientific quality of the manuscript, its originality, ethical compliance, and its relevance to the journal. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, while the final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

5. Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations
When reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may:

• evaluate the reviewers’ arguments and the manuscript independently;
• request clarification or additional comments from the reviewers;
• invite a third reviewer;
• return the manuscript to the authors for further clarification or revision.

The editor will make the final decision based on the strength and relevance of the reviewers’ arguments rather than solely on the number of recommendations for acceptance or rejection.

6. Revision Process
Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:

• a revised version of the manuscript;
• a detailed response to each reviewer comment;
• a clear explanation when a recommendation is not followed;
• a version showing or highlighting the revisions, when requested.

Authors are generally given 7–21 days to complete revisions, depending on the extent of the changes required. Additional time may be granted upon a reasonable request to the editorial office. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

7. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, assigned reviewers, editorial advisers, or publisher when necessary.
Reviewers must not use unpublished data, arguments, interpretations, or ideas contained in a manuscript for personal research or professional advantage.

8. Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of the review process. A reviewer or editor must withdraw from handling a manuscript when there is a personal, institutional, financial, academic, or collaborative relationship with the authors that may influence impartial judgement.

9. Submissions from Editorial Board Members
Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, or members of the Editorial Board will be handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors. Editorial Board members who submit manuscripts to the journal will not participate in reviewer selection, editorial evaluation, or the final decision concerning their own submissions.

10. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity
The editorial team may suspend or terminate the review process if there are indications of plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, data falsification, unethical research practices, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other violations of publication ethics. When necessary, the journal may request supporting data, ethical approval documents, informed-consent statements, research instruments, or other relevant documentation.

11. Estimated Review Timeline
The journal aims to provide the first editorial decision within approximately 4–8 weeks after submission. However, the actual processing time may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and the number of review rounds. The journal prioritizes the quality and integrity of peer review over excessively rapid editorial decisions.

12. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit an appeal when they believe that an editorial decision was based on a factual misunderstanding, procedural error, or inappropriate interpretation of the manuscript.
Appeals must include a clear academic justification and must address the reviewers’ and editor’s comments respectfully. The appeal will be evaluated by an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision whenever possible. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee that the editorial decision will be changed.