Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
Justitia Nova: Indonesian Journal of Modern Law recognizes peer review as an essential mechanism for maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publishing. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, objective, constructive, confidential, and timely assessments that assist the Editorial Board in making informed decisions and help authors improve the scholarly quality of their manuscripts.
The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. Reviewers are therefore expected to conduct their evaluations independently and to protect the confidentiality of all information obtained during the review.
Purpose of Peer Review
The peer review process is intended to assess the academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, legal significance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts. Reviewer reports should provide the Editorial Board with a sound basis for editorial decision-making while offering authors constructive recommendations for strengthening their research, analysis, and presentation.
Peer review is an academic assessment rather than an opportunity to promote personal, institutional, or theoretical preferences. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to their scholarly merits and the standards of Justitia Nova.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers should carefully evaluate the manuscript assigned to them and provide an objective and balanced assessment. They should consider the manuscript's originality, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, clarity of research objectives, appropriateness of methodology, quality of legal analysis, use of evidence and scholarly literature, coherence of argumentation, and validity of its conclusions.
Reviewers should provide sufficiently detailed comments to explain significant strengths and weaknesses and to assist authors in improving the manuscript. Recommendations should be based on academic reasoning and, where appropriate, supported by relevant scholarly evidence.
Review Criteria
Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript makes an original and meaningful contribution to contemporary legal scholarship. Particular attention should be given to the clarity and significance of the research problem, the adequacy of the research methodology, the depth and quality of legal reasoning, the engagement with relevant literature, the accuracy of citations and references, and the consistency between the research objectives, findings, discussion, and conclusions.
Reviewers should also consider the manuscript's overall structure, clarity of presentation, academic writing quality, and relevance to an international readership.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or discuss the manuscript or its contents with unauthorized individuals.
Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, professional, financial, or competitive advantage. Reviewers should not retain or make unauthorized copies of submitted manuscripts or unpublished research materials after completing the review.
To protect confidential information, reviewers should not upload submitted manuscripts or substantial portions of them to publicly accessible Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems or other platforms that may store, process, disclose, or reuse confidential content.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should decline an invitation if they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality. Such conflicts may arise from personal relationships, recent or ongoing collaboration, institutional affiliation, financial interests, academic competition, or other circumstances that could reasonably compromise independent judgment.
If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting a review assignment, the reviewer should immediately inform the Editorial Office so that the matter can be assessed and, where necessary, the manuscript reassigned.
Research and Publication Ethics
Reviewers should remain alert to potential concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of research and publication misconduct.
Any serious ethical concern should be communicated confidentially to the Editorial Office, together with relevant evidence or explanation where available. Reviewers should avoid making unsupported allegations or discussing suspected misconduct directly with the authors.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
Reviewers must exercise particular caution when using Artificial Intelligence technologies in connection with peer review. Confidential manuscript content must not be entered into publicly accessible AI systems or other platforms that may retain, reuse, disclose, or otherwise expose submitted material.
AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of their review reports. Any use of AI-assisted technologies must comply with the journal's applicable policies and must not compromise the confidentiality of the peer review process.
Review Recommendations
After completing the assessment, reviewers may recommend Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. The recommendation should be consistent with the substantive comments provided in the review report and supported by clear academic reasoning.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor, taking into consideration the reviewer reports, editorial assessment, ethical considerations, and overall suitability of the manuscript for publication.
Timeliness
Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have sufficient expertise in the relevant subject area and are able to complete the review within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office.
If circumstances prevent a reviewer from completing the assessment within the agreed period, the reviewer should notify the Editorial Office as soon as possible. Prompt communication enables the journal to maintain an efficient and timely editorial process.
Constructive and Professional Review
Review comments should be clear, respectful, objective, and evidence-based. Reviewers should focus their comments on the manuscript and should not make personal, offensive, discriminatory, or derogatory remarks about the authors.
Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between substantive issues that must be addressed before publication and recommendations that may improve the manuscript but are not essential. Where reviewers disagree with an author's interpretation, methodology, or legal argument, the disagreement should be expressed through reasoned academic discussion.
Communication During Review
Reviewers should not contact authors directly concerning a manuscript under review unless expressly authorized by the Editorial Office. All communication relating to the review should be conducted through the journal's official editorial system or designated communication channels.
Maintaining communication through the Editorial Office helps preserve the integrity and confidentiality of the Double-Blind Peer Review process.
Reviewer Recognition
Justitia Nova appreciates the scholarly contribution of reviewers who voluntarily participate in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal. Subject to confidentiality requirements, the journal may recognize reviewer contributions through appropriate forms of acknowledgment, including periodic or annual recognition of reviewers.
Such recognition will not disclose confidential information concerning individual manuscripts or reveal reviewer identities in connection with specific editorial decisions.
Commitment to Quality Peer Review
The Editorial Board of Justitia Nova: Indonesian Journal of Modern Law is committed to maintaining a rigorous, ethical, independent, and constructive peer review system. Reviewers are essential partners in achieving this objective and are expected to uphold the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, professionalism, and respect for scholarly independence.
Through responsible peer review, Justitia Nova seeks to ensure that every published article demonstrates academic quality, methodological rigor, sound legal reasoning, originality, and a meaningful contribution to contemporary legal scholarship.