Reviewer Guidelines

Justitia Nova: Indonesian Journal of Modern Law greatly values the contribution of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publishing. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, objective, constructive, and timely evaluations that assist editors in making informed editorial decisions and help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly.

• Provide constructive and professional feedback.

• Assess the originality, quality, and significance of the research.

• Recommend improvements that strengthen the manuscript.

• Assist editors in making evidence-based editorial decisions.

• Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects:

• Originality and novelty of the research.

• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

• Importance and contribution to legal scholarship.

• Clarity of research objectives.

• Appropriateness of research methodology.

• Quality and depth of legal analysis.

• Logical organization and coherence.

• Use of relevant and up-to-date references.

• Accuracy of citations and references.

• Quality of writing and academic presentation.

• Validity of conclusions.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

• Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted manuscripts.

• Decline review invitations when conflicts of interest exist.

• Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or research misconduct.

• Avoid using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

• Respect the intellectual property rights of the authors.

Reviewers should not:

• Contact authors directly regarding the manuscript.

• Share manuscript content with third parties.

• Upload confidential manuscripts to publicly accessible Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems or platforms that may retain or reuse submitted content.

• Allow personal opinions or institutional affiliations to influence their recommendations.

Review Recommendations

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

• Accept.

• Minor Revision.

• Major Revision.

• Reject.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

Timeliness

Reviewers are encouraged to accept review invitations only when they can complete the review within the requested timeframe.

If unexpected circumstances prevent timely completion, reviewers should promptly notify the Editorial Office.

Constructive Feedback

Review comments should:

• Be clear, respectful, and evidence-based.

• Focus on improving the manuscript.

• Distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.

• Avoid offensive, discriminatory, or personal remarks.

Recognition of Reviewers

Justitia Nova appreciates the valuable contributions of its reviewers in maintaining academic quality and publication integrity.

The journal may acknowledge reviewer contributions through annual reviewer recognition while maintaining the confidentiality of individual manuscript reviews.

Commitment to High-Quality Peer Review

The Editorial Board is committed to fostering a rigorous, ethical, and constructive peer review process. Reviewers play a central role in ensuring that every published article meets the highest standards of academic quality, legal scholarship, and research integrity.