Peer reviewers are required to provide recommendations to help authors to improve the quality of published manuscripts and editor in determining the editorial policy, in accordance with their respective expertise

1. Willingness
Peer reviewers should inform the editor about the willingness to do a review on the manuscript to be published. If unwilling, peer reviewers must notify the editor

2. Confidentiality
The reviewed manuscript is a confidential document. Communication with other parties without the author's permission is prohibited

3. Standard Objectivity 
Peer reviewers must take hold of the principles of objectivity and avoiding personal criticism against the author of the manuscript during the review process and all comments must be accompanied by clear and supportive suggestions

4. Reference Clarity
Peer Reviewers are recommended to provide information to the authors of the research with the literature, or relevant case studies which have not been cited, having a substantial similarity or overlap with the manuscripts reviewed.

5. Conflicts of Interest

  • Peer reviewers are not allowed to use unpublished manuscript material for personal use without the prior written consent of the author, under any circumstances;
  • The information and ideas contained in the reviewed manuscript is confidential and should not be distributed or used for personal gain;
  • If having a conflict of interest for reasons of competition, collaboration, or other relationship with the author, institution or company involved in publishing, peer reviewers are not permitted to evaluate the related manuscript

1. Publication Decision  
Decision making of the published manuscript is the liability of the editor based on the policies and guidelines of the editorial board as well as based on compliance with legal requirements, such as not containing any information that harms others or containing slander, copyright disputes, and plagiarism. Communication with other editors or peer reviewers is acceptable to support the decision-making of the publication of the manuscript. Issuance decisions cannot be made by an editor based on personal considerations

2. Fairness 
Editors must be able to evaluate a manuscript based on its scientific content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and belief, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors

3. Confidentiality
All information contained in the manuscript is confidential and should not be distributed except to the author, peer reviewers, prospective peer reviewers, editors, and publishers concerned

4. Conflicts of Interest

  • The editor is not allowed to use the unpublished manuscript material for personal use without the prior written consent of the author, under any circumstances;
  • The information and ideas contained in the text which is in the peer-review process is confidential and will not be distributed or used for personal benefit;
  • In case of having a conflict of interest for reasons of competition, collaboration, or other relationship with the author, institution or company involved in publishing, the editor is not permitted to evaluate the related texts. Thus, another editor board member should be involved in determining the issuance of the manuscript;
  • Editors must ensure that all parties involved in the review process and the publication of the manuscript declare a conflict of interest in the publication of a manuscript, as well as make corrections if a conflict of interest is revealed after the manuscript is published. If necessary, the editor can take appropriate action, such as publishing editorial statements or retraction of the manuscript;
  • The share of non-peer-reviewed written by the editor should be differentiated and easily identifiable in the scientific periodicals.

5. Involvement and Collaboration in the Investigation
Reports related to actions that do not comply with the ethics of publishing are justified, even many years after the manuscript was published. The report must be addressed by the editor. Editors should contact the author and establish communication with the institution or entity related to the report. Correction, retraction, or other editorial notes should be published as a form of official response to the report complaints.

6. Fatal Error on Published Manuscript
If the editor or others encountered a fatal error and inaccuracies in the published manuscript, the editor should immediately notify the author and request his/her correction or retraction).

7. Review of the Manuscript
The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. Editors must regulate and use peer review fairly and wisely. The editor must explain their peer review process in information for the author and also indicate which part of the journal is reviewed by a colleague. Editors must use appropriate peer reviewers for papers considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those who have conflicts of interest.

1. Writing standard

2. The author should comply with the following standards for preparing the manuscript to be published in the scientific periodicals:

  • Presenting accurate (using controlled and specific protocols/ procedures), reliable, repeatable, prĂ©cised, and validated data;
  • Presenting sufficient details and references so as to ease other parties to repeat the research steps in the text;
  • Differentiating personal opinion from an accurate and objective scientific statement on the basis of references.

3. Data Access and Retention
Access of raw data should be granted for the purpose of editorial review).

4. Originality and Plagiarism
The manuscript must contain the original research. For any excerpts or adaptations from previously published authors, the research must be clearly stated. All forms of plagiarism will experience rejection).

5. Multiple, Repetitive, or Simultaneous Publication
A writer may not, in general, to publish the manuscript which essentially describes the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same text to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable publishing behaviour.

6. Sources of Information and References
Information from personal communication such as conversations, interviews, correspondence, and discussions or activities that are confidential as a manuscript jury or grant application or research funding schemes, should not be used without written permission from the original source or author.

7. Writing Agreement
The writing must be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported research. All who have contributed significantly must be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they must be recognized or listed as contributors. The appropriate author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no co-authors are not appropriately incorporated on paper and that all co-authors have seen and agreed to the final version of the paper and have to Approve its submission for publication.

8. Conflict of Interest
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial conflict or other substantive conflicts of interest that can be interpreted to influence the outcome or interpretation of their manuscript. All financial support resources for the project must be disclosed.

9. Fatal Errors in the Published Manuscript
When a writer finds any errors or significant inaccuracies in his own self-published work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to redraw or Repairing paper.


Peer Review Process

Some policies in the review of Wawasan: Jurnal Ilmiah Agama dan Sosial Budaya:

  1. The reviewers will review the submitted article that follow the guidelines and template of the journal provided.
  2. The review process in this journal employs a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa.
  3. In the review process, the reviewers ensure the quality of the articles of its title, abstract, discussion and conclusion. Besides, the reviewers also address the novelty and its contribution to the scientific discussion and verify the plagiarism and ethics of publication.
  4. The reviewer also provide feedback on whether the article is accepted, rejected or need minor or major revision.