Peer Review Policy

Contemporary Issues on Indonesian Human Rights Law and Policy applies a rigorous double anonymous peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, scholarly integrity, and academic relevance of all research articles submitted to the journal. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

The peer review process is designed to provide an objective and constructive assessment of manuscripts and to ensure that published articles make a meaningful contribution to scholarship on Indonesian human rights law, policy, and related interdisciplinary fields.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are first assessed by the Editorial Office to determine whether they comply with the journal's submission requirements, publication ethics standards, formatting guidelines, and scope.

The initial screening may include assessment of:

• Compliance with the journal's aims and scope;
• Originality and academic relevance;
• Manuscript structure and completeness;
• Quality and adequacy of references;
• Basic methodological soundness;
• Compliance with ethical requirements;
• Language and academic presentation;
• Similarity and plagiarism screening; and
• Potential conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts that fall substantially outside the journal's scope, fail to meet basic scholarly or ethical requirements, or do not satisfy minimum standards of academic quality may be rejected at the editorial screening stage without external peer review.

Editorial screening does not constitute a judgment on the ultimate publishability of the manuscript. Its purpose is to determine whether the manuscript is sufficiently suitable to proceed to external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

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

The journal employs a double anonymous peer review model in which:

• Reviewers do not know the identity or institutional affiliation of the authors;
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers;
• Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process; and
• Manuscripts must not contain information that unnecessarily reveals the identity of the authors.

Where appropriate, the Editor may appoint additional reviewers when the manuscript covers multiple disciplines, contains substantial methodological complexity, or receives significantly divergent assessments.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their:

• Relevant academic expertise;
• Research experience and scholarly publications;
• Knowledge of the subject matter or methodology employed in the manuscript;
• Academic independence;
• Professional integrity; and
• Absence of actual or potential conflicts of interest.

The journal seeks reviewers from diverse institutional and geographical backgrounds to promote academic independence and minimize potential institutional or regional bias.

Reviewers should not be selected solely on the basis of personal recommendations from authors, and the journal reserves the right to determine the suitability of suggested reviewers.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, fair, confidential, and constructive evaluation of the manuscript.

Reviewers should assess, as applicable:

• Originality and significance of the research;
• Clarity and relevance of the research question;
• Engagement with relevant national and international literature;
• Theoretical or conceptual contribution;
• Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;
• Quality and reliability of evidence or data;
• Accuracy and coherence of legal, doctrinal, empirical, or comparative analysis;
• Validity of findings and conclusions;
• Logical organization and clarity of argument;
• Contribution to contemporary human rights scholarship;
• Relevance to Indonesian human rights law and policy;
• Ethical considerations;
• Adequacy and accuracy of references; and
• Overall scholarly contribution.

Reviewers should distinguish between major substantive concerns and minor editorial or presentation issues and should provide sufficient explanation to enable authors to improve their manuscripts.

Reviewers should not make recommendations based on the authors' nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, political position, religion, ethnicity, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

5. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for peer review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript or its contents with third parties;
• Use unpublished information, arguments, data, or findings for their own research;
• Discuss the manuscript with others without prior authorization from the Editor;
• Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript; or
• Disclose their role as a reviewer where doing so could compromise the integrity of the review process.

Any concerns regarding confidentiality or inappropriate access to the manuscript should be immediately reported to the Editor.

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an invitation to review.

A reviewer should decline the assignment if, for example:

• They have a close personal or professional relationship with one of the authors;
• They have recently collaborated with an author;
• They are from the same institution as an author;
• They have a direct academic, financial, or professional interest in the outcome of the manuscript;
• They are currently competing with the authors in a closely related research project; or
• They believe that their relationship with the manuscript or its authors could compromise their objectivity.

The Editor may replace a reviewer where a conflict of interest is identified.

7. Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally asked to consider the following dimensions:

8. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers are normally requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept — The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only very minor revisions.
• Minor Revision — The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited revisions.
• Major Revision — The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revision before a publication decision can be made.
• Reject and Resubmit — The manuscript requires fundamental revision and may be considered as a new submission where appropriate.
• Reject — The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards, scope, or requirements for publication.

The final editorial decision is not determined mechanically by reviewer recommendations. The Editor retains responsibility for the final decision based on the reviewers' reports, the quality of the manuscript, the journal's standards, and the overall contribution of the work.

9. Revision Process

Where revisions are requested, authors should submit:

1. A revised version of the manuscript; and
2. A detailed response to reviewers explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Authors should clearly indicate changes made to the manuscript where requested by the Editorial Office.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly where major revisions have been requested. The Editor may also seek additional review where necessary.

10. Divergent Reviewer Recommendations

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor may:

• Request clarification from one or more reviewers;
• Invite an additional independent reviewer;
• Assess the manuscript independently based on the submitted reports; or
• Request further revision from the authors.

A disagreement between reviewers does not automatically result in acceptance or rejection. The Editor considers the substance and scholarly justification of each review rather than simply counting recommendations.

11. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial interests, sponsorship, institutional pressure, or other non-academic considerations.

Editors and reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on academic merit, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and scholarly contribution.

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest. Such manuscripts will be assigned to another qualified editor to ensure an independent editorial process.

12. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that the decision resulted from a significant procedural error, factual misunderstanding, inappropriate review, or a demonstrable conflict of interest.

Appeals must provide a clear and reasoned explanation and should address specific concerns regarding the editorial or review process. Appeals that merely disagree with an editorial judgment without providing substantive grounds may not be considered.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated independent editor will assess the appeal. Where appropriate, an additional independent reviewer may be consulted.

The decision following an appeal is normally final.

13. Reviewer Misconduct

The journal takes reviewer misconduct seriously. Concerns may include:

• Breach of confidentiality;
• Plagiarism or appropriation of authors' ideas;
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• Manipulation of the peer review process;
• Discriminatory or abusive comments;
• Use of unpublished material for personal or professional advantage; or
• Other conduct that compromises the integrity of peer review.

Where credible concerns arise, the journal may investigate the matter and take appropriate action, including removing the reviewer from the journal's reviewer database and reporting serious cases to relevant institutions or professional bodies where appropriate.

14. Review Timeline

The journal aims to conduct the peer review process in a timely manner while prioritizing the quality and integrity of editorial decisions.

The duration of peer review may vary depending on:

• Reviewer availability;
• Subject specialization;
• Complexity of the manuscript;
• Number of review rounds required; and
• The need to appoint additional reviewers.

Authors will be informed of significant delays where reasonably possible.

The journal does not compromise the rigor of peer review solely to accelerate publication.

15. Post-Publication Concerns

Peer review does not guarantee that an article is free from error. The journal therefore welcomes responsible communication concerning substantial errors, ethical concerns, or other issues affecting the integrity of published articles.

Post-publication concerns may be investigated by the Editor in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies. Where necessary, the journal may issue a correction, clarification, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate editorial notice.

16. Commitment to Fair and Rigorous Peer Review

Contemporary Issues on Indonesian Human Rights Law and Policy is committed to maintaining a peer review process that is independent, transparent in principle, confidential in execution, academically rigorous, and respectful to authors and reviewers.

The journal considers peer review an essential mechanism for maintaining scholarly quality and advancing knowledge. Reviewers are therefore expected not merely to identify weaknesses but also, where appropriate, to provide constructive recommendations that can strengthen the theoretical, methodological, analytical, and practical contribution of submitted manuscripts.