Peer Review Policy

HABITAT use peer review process policy to ensure the highest quality of published articles. The following are the principles that govern our peer review process:

First, All manuscripts submitted to this journal must follow focus and scope, and author guidelines of this journal. The submitted manuscripts must address scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism contents and not more than 20%. All authors are suggested to use plagiarism detection software to do the similarity checking. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal by using Turnitin software. 

Second, The research article submitted to this journal will be double blind review at least 2 (two) or more expert reviewers. The identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept confidential to ensure unbiased and objective evaluations. The reviewers give scientific valuable comments improving the contents of the manuscript. Final decision of articles acceptance will be made by Editors according to reviewers comments. Publication of accepted articles including the sequence of published articles will be made by Editor in Chief by considering sequence of accepted date and geographical distribution of authors as well as thematic issue.

Third, for time to review we strive to maintain a reasonable timeframe for the review process. Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within the given deadline to ensure timely feedback for authors. Prompt reviews help facilitate the publication process and maintain the overall efficiency of HABITAT.

Fourth, Reviewers responsibility to maintain a strict adherence to elevated ethical principles throughout the entirety of the peer review process. Academic conduct encompasses several key principles, such as upholding confidentiality while handling manuscripts, avoiding situations that may give rise to conflicts of interest, ensuring objectivity in evaluations, and refraining from engaging in any acts of plagiarism or illegal utilization of the manuscript's content.

Fifth, Reviewers responsibility to uphold the principle of confidentiality when evaluating submissions, refraining from divulging any content or discoveries from the manuscript prior to its official publication.

After finished the duty, Habitat always said thank's to the reviewers about theirs dedication and time in providing the quality review reports.

Review Outcomes: The final publication decision will be made by the Editor based on input received during the peer review process. The evaluation procedure will take between four and twelve weeks. Decision-making categories consist of:

  • Reject – Manuscripts that are rejected will not be published, and authors will not be able to submit the manuscript to Habitat again with revisions.
  • Resubmit for Review: The submission needs revisions, but if substantial modifications are made, it could be approved. It will require a second round of review.

Accept with Revisions: Manuscripts that are accepted with the condition of minor or major changes will be published in Habitat after getting an accept-pending-revisions decision. The Editorial team is going to look over the revisions to make sure all the suggestion are completed before publishing.

  • Accept – Manuscripts that are accepted will be published directly, with no modifications needed.

Correspondence: Any correspondence pertaining to manuscripts should be sent to with a copy to the editor of habitat. Every communication from the editor will be sent to the main author, who will subsequently forward it to the other writers as well. Manuscripts selected for publication may need extra communications for copyediting and layout editing beyond notification of the review.