Peer Review & Editorial Policy
Locus: Jurnal Konsep Ilmu Hukum (JKIH) applies a rigorous editorial and peer-review policy to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of every manuscript submitted to the journal. All submissions are evaluated through an editorial screening process and a double-blind peer-review mechanism before a final publication decision is made.
The peer-review process is designed to provide an objective, fair, and constructive assessment of manuscripts. The identity of authors and reviewers is kept confidential during the review process in order to maintain impartiality, academic independence, and the integrity of scholarly evaluation.
JKIH does not guarantee acceptance of any manuscript. Acceptance is based solely on academic merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, methodological soundness, originality, ethical compliance, and the recommendations of reviewers and editors.
Peer Review Model
Double-Blind Review
JKIH applies a double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers do not receive information about the identity of the authors, and authors do not receive information about the identity of the reviewers.
Independent Assessment
Manuscripts are assessed by reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and academically grounded evaluations.
Editorial Decision
The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the editor based on reviewer recommendations, editorial considerations, and compliance with journal standards.
Editorial Workflow
Initial Editorial Screening
- Checking manuscript suitability with the journal’s aims and scope.
- Assessing compliance with author guidelines and manuscript structure.
- Reviewing the clarity of research problem, argument, and contribution.
- Conducting preliminary checks for originality and ethical compliance.
Peer Review Process
- Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to reviewers.
- Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on academic quality and relevance.
- Authors may be required to revise the manuscript according to reviewer comments.
- Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by editors or reviewers when necessary.
Review Criteria
Originality
The manuscript should present original analysis, argument, findings, or perspectives that contribute to the development of legal scholarship.
Relevance
The topic should be relevant to the journal’s focus and scope, and should address legal issues of academic, practical, institutional, or policy significance.
Methodology
The manuscript should apply an appropriate and transparent research method, whether doctrinal, normative, empirical, socio-legal, comparative, or interdisciplinary.
Legal Argumentation
The article should demonstrate coherent legal reasoning, critical analysis, and a clear relationship between the research problem, discussion, and conclusion.
Literature Engagement
The manuscript should engage with relevant legal literature, legislation, cases, policy documents, and scholarly debates according to the nature of the research.
Ethical Compliance
The manuscript must comply with publication ethics, including originality, proper citation, absence of plagiarism, and avoidance of conflicts of interest.
Editorial Decisions
Possible Editorial Outcomes
- Accepted: the manuscript is accepted for publication without substantial revision.
- Minor Revision: the manuscript requires limited correction or clarification.
- Major Revision: the manuscript requires substantial improvement before further consideration.
- Resubmit for Review: the manuscript requires significant revision and may be reviewed again.
- Rejected: the manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic, ethical, or editorial standards.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Confidentiality
- Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
- Reviewers may not share, copy, or use manuscript content for personal advantage.
- Reviewer identity is not disclosed to authors during the review process.
Objectivity and Integrity
- Reviewers should provide objective and constructive comments.
- Reviewers should avoid personal criticism of authors.
- Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.
Author Responsibilities
During the Review Process
- Authors must submit original work that has not been published or submitted elsewhere.
- Authors must properly cite all sources and avoid plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical authorship practices.
- Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments carefully, respectfully, and within the timeline set by the editorial office.
- Authors must ensure that revisions are made transparently and in accordance with editorial instructions.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by the author’s institutional affiliation, nationality, personal background, payment status, or other non-academic considerations. The editorial board is responsible for ensuring that every manuscript is evaluated based on scholarly merit and compliance with journal policies.
Policy Statement
JKIH is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, and academically responsible peer-review process. The journal upholds the principles of editorial independence, reviewer confidentiality, publication ethics, and scholarly integrity in order to ensure that all published articles meet appropriate academic standards.
