Peer Review Process

Justitia Nova: Indonesian Journal of Modern Law

Justitia Nova: Indonesian Journal of Modern Law is committed to ensuring the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of all published manuscripts through a rigorous and transparent peer review process.

The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. This approach is intended to ensure impartiality, fairness, and objective evaluation of scholarly work.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the Editorial Team to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope;

  • Originality and scholarly contribution;

  • Compliance with the journal's author guidelines;

  • Academic writing quality and clarity of presentation;

  • Ethical considerations and research integrity.

At this stage, manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical revisions or rejected if they fall outside the scope of the journal or fail to meet minimum scholarly standards.

Similarity Check

All submitted manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software before entering the peer review stage.

Manuscripts with excessive similarity, evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct may be rejected immediately.

The journal generally requires a similarity index that demonstrates sufficient originality and proper citation practices.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

During the review process:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

  • Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively and confidentially.

  • Reviews focus on academic quality, originality, legal analysis, methodology, argumentation, and contribution to legal scholarship.

Reviewers are requested to provide constructive comments and recommendations to improve the manuscript.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on several criteria, including:

  • Relevance to legal studies and the journal's scope;

  • Originality and novelty of the research;

  • Significance of the legal issues discussed;

  • Quality of legal reasoning and argumentation;

  • Adequacy of methodology and research approach;

  • Use of relevant literature and legal sources;

  • Clarity, coherence, and academic writing quality;

  • Contribution to legal theory, policy, or practice.

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers' reports and editorial assessment, one of the following decisions may be made:

Accept Submission

The manuscript is accepted for publication without further revision.

Revisions Required

The manuscript requires minor or major revisions before a final decision can be made.

Resubmit for Review

Substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may undergo an additional round of peer review.

Decline Submission

The manuscript is rejected due to insufficient quality, lack of originality, methodological weaknesses, ethical concerns, or incompatibility with the journal's scope.

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests must submit a revised manuscript along with a response letter explaining how reviewers' comments have been addressed.

Failure to respond adequately to reviewer comments may result in rejection of the manuscript.

Review Timeline

The journal strives to maintain an efficient review process.

The approximate timeline is:

Stage Estimated Time
Initial Editorial Screening 1–2 weeks
Peer Review Process 3–6 weeks
Author Revision 1–4 weeks
Final Editorial Decision 1–2 weeks

Actual review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality of all manuscripts;

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations;

  • Disclose any conflicts of interest;

  • Refrain from using unpublished materials for personal advantage;

  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

Transparency and Academic Integrity

Justitia Nova is committed to promoting transparency, fairness, academic excellence, and research integrity throughout the publication process.

The journal follows internationally recognized ethical publishing standards and reserves the right to reject, retract, or correct publications when ethical concerns are identified.

Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review
Minimum Number of Reviewers: Two Independent Reviewers
Average Review Period: 4–8 Weeks
Publication Frequency: Biannual (June and December)
Language of Publication: English