Peer Review Policy

The Indonesian Court and Justice Review (ICJR) applies a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution of all manuscripts submitted for publication. The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity and independence of the peer review process in accordance with internationally recognized principles of publication ethics.

1. Type of Peer Review

ICJR employs a double-blind peer review system. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are likewise concealed from authors throughout the review process.

Authors are required to remove identifying information from the manuscript and ensure that references to their previous work do not unnecessarily disclose their identity. Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscripts they receive.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the Editorial Board to determine whether they:

  • fall within the journal's focus and scope;

  • comply with the journal's submission and formatting requirements;

  • demonstrate sufficient originality and academic significance;

  • meet basic standards of research methodology and scholarly writing;

  • comply with applicable research ethics requirements; and

  • contain no apparent plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected at the editorial screening stage without external peer review.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at three two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their:

  • academic and research expertise;

  • publication record and scholarly competence;

  • familiarity with the relevant legal, judicial, or interdisciplinary field;

  • independence from the authors and their affiliated institutions; and

  • absence of any actual or potential conflict of interest.

Where necessary, the Editor may appoint additional reviewers to resolve significant differences between reviewer recommendations or to obtain specialist expertise.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following principal criteria:

  1. Originality – the extent to which the manuscript offers an original argument, finding, interpretation, or contribution to existing scholarship.

  2. Relevance and significance – the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope and its contribution to scholarship on courts, justice, legal institutions, or related fields.

  3. Theoretical engagement – the adequacy and relevance of the theoretical or conceptual framework.

  4. Methodological rigor – the appropriateness, transparency, and rigor of the research design, methods, sources, and analytical procedures.

  5. Quality of legal and empirical analysis – the coherence, accuracy, depth, and critical quality of the analysis.

  6. Use of literature and sources – the adequacy, relevance, currency, and scholarly quality of references and supporting evidence.

  7. Argumentation and conclusions – the logical consistency of the argument and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the analysis.

  8. Clarity and organization – the structure, readability, academic language, and overall presentation of the manuscript.

  9. Ethical compliance – adherence to applicable standards of research and publication ethics.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive and evidence-based comments that can assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

5. Review Outcomes

Following peer review, the Editor may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept – the manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial adjustments.

  • Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions before publication.

  • Major Revision – substantial revisions are required and the revised manuscript may be subject to further peer review.

  • Reject and Resubmit – the manuscript has potential but requires substantial redevelopment before it can be considered as a new submission.

  • Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision rests with the Editor or Editorial Board, taking into consideration the reviewers' assessments and the overall quality and suitability of the manuscript.

6. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the Editor. A revised manuscript should be accompanied by a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments, clearly explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a reviewer, they may provide a reasoned academic response. Authors are not required to accept every reviewer recommendation provided that their response is adequately justified.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the Editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to ICJR are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript contents, reviewer reports, author identities, or editorial decisions to unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for their own research or personal advantage.

8. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of their evaluation. Conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

  • current or recent collaboration with the authors;

  • personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors;

  • institutional affiliation that may compromise impartiality;

  • direct competition involving closely related research; or

  • any other circumstance that could reasonably affect independent judgment.

Reviewers who identify a significant conflict of interest should decline the review assignment and inform the Editor.

Editors are likewise required to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest. An Editor who has a conflict concerning a manuscript should not participate in its editorial decision-making process.

9. Reviewer Conduct and Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide objective, impartial, and constructive assessments;

  • evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit rather than the author's identity, nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, political position, or other irrelevant characteristics;

  • maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript;

  • identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited, where applicable;

  • distinguish between substantive scholarly concerns and minor editorial issues;

  • promptly notify the Editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, or other forms of research or publication misconduct; and

  • complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or promptly notify the Editor if an extension is required.

Personal, hostile, discriminatory, or defamatory comments are not acceptable in reviewer reports.

10. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and ethical standards of submitted manuscripts. Decisions should not be influenced by commercial interests, institutional pressure, political considerations, personal relationships, or the author's academic status.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance based solely on positive reviewer recommendations. Likewise, a manuscript may be rejected where the Editor determines that it does not meet the journal's standards despite favorable individual reviews.

11. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual or procedural error may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals must provide a clear and substantive explanation of the grounds for reconsideration. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the academic judgment of reviewers will generally not be considered unless the author can demonstrate a material error, conflict of interest, procedural irregularity, or other substantial concern.

The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may seek an additional independent assessment where appropriate. The decision following an appeal is normally final.

12. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

ICJR is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics and research integrity. The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, duplicate or redundant publication, manipulation of citations, authorship misconduct, or other forms of academic misconduct.

Where concerns arise during or after peer review, the journal may conduct an investigation and take appropriate action, which may include requesting clarification from authors, contacting relevant institutions, rejecting a manuscript, issuing a correction or retraction, or taking other measures consistent with recognized publication-ethics principles.

13. Review Timeline

The journal aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and independence of peer review. The duration of the review process may vary depending on the availability of qualified reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, the need for additional review, and the extent of revisions required.

The Editorial Board regularly monitors the peer review process to minimize unnecessary delays and ensure that manuscripts are handled in a timely and professional manner.

14. Post-Publication Review

Peer review does not eliminate the possibility of errors or concerns arising after publication. ICJR welcomes scholarly communication concerning published articles and may consider corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions where credible evidence indicates that a published work contains a significant error or violates standards of research or publication ethics.

All post-publication actions are handled in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and applicable publication-ethics standards.