Peer reviewers play an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Jurnal Widya Bhumi have an obligation to provide transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner.

The Jurnal Widya Bhumi adheres to a Double-Blind Peer-Review process that is rapid and fair and ensures a high quality of published articles. The reviewer is a journal partner from the experts concerned about this journal's field. All manuscripts submitted to this journal will be reviewed by at least 2 (two) or more reviewers with the "Double-Blind Peer-Review" system. Authors should receive acknowledgment of receipt of their articles after three weeks of submission. If the article passes the initial editorial screening, the article is sent to two reviewers, which takes about two to four months. Articles accepted with minor or major revisions should be revised as the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

Every manuscript submitted to Jurnal Widya Bhumi will be checked by the board of editors regarding scope, in-house style, and plagiarism. The manuscript that qualifies the focus and scope of Jurnal Widya Bhumi will be continued to the review process. The editor will send a notification and e-mail to the chosen reviewer about the manuscript's title and content and the invitation to log in to the journal website to finish the review process. The reviewer logs in to the journal website to approve the review, download the manuscript, send their comment, and choose the recommendation. The qualified paper will be published. In so doing, Jurnal Widya Bhumi needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround time of about 4 week. The result will be returned to the author to be followed up. Maintaining Jurnal Widya Bhumi as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. This statement is based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.