Peer Review Policy

Lentera Masyarakat Hukum applies a double-blind peer review process to all scholarly manuscripts that are considered suitable for peer review. Under this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from one another throughout the review process.

The peer review process is intended to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, ethical integrity, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts published by the journal.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Team before being sent for external peer review. The initial screening evaluates:

the manuscript's alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope;
compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript requirements;
originality and potential scholarly contribution;
basic methodological and academic quality;
clarity and completeness of the manuscript;
adherence to publication and research ethics; and
potential plagiarism or significant textual overlap.

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor may reject a manuscript at this stage if it falls outside the journal's scope, does not meet the minimum academic or ethical standards, or requires substantial improvement before it can reasonably be evaluated through peer review.

Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on:

relevant academic or professional expertise;
scholarly experience and subject-matter competence;
absence of actual or potential conflicts of interest;
ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment; and
availability to complete the review within the expected timeframe.

Where appropriate, the journal seeks reviewers from different institutions and geographical backgrounds to promote independent and diverse scholarly assessment.

Reviewers should not have a close personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship with the authors that could compromise the impartiality of the review.

3. Double-Blind Review

Under the journal's double-blind review system:

reviewers are not informed of the identities or institutional affiliations of the authors;
authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers;
reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of the manuscript; and
authors and reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Authors should therefore remove identifying information from the manuscript where required by the journal's submission guidelines.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to preserve reviewer and author anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized research areas or when manuscripts have previously been publicly disseminated.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on criteria appropriate to the article type. The assessment generally includes:

Originality and contribution — whether the manuscript provides an original, meaningful, or useful contribution to legal scholarship, socio-legal studies, or community-based legal practice.
Relevance and significance — whether the topic is relevant to the journal's scope and addresses a significant legal or social issue.
Conceptual and theoretical foundation — whether the manuscript demonstrates appropriate engagement with relevant concepts, theories, legal doctrines, or previous scholarship.
Methodological rigor — whether the research design, methodology, data sources, analytical procedures, and limitations are appropriate and sufficiently explained.
Analysis and discussion — whether the arguments are logically developed and adequately supported by evidence and relevant literature.
Legal and empirical accuracy — whether legal authorities, empirical evidence, cases, regulations, and other sources are accurately presented and interpreted.
Clarity and organization — whether the manuscript is coherent, well structured, and written in an academically appropriate manner.
Ethical considerations — whether relevant research and publication ethics have been appropriately addressed.
Implications and significance — whether the findings or analysis provide meaningful implications for legal scholarship, policy, practice, communities, or access to justice.
References and scholarly engagement — whether the manuscript engages adequately with relevant and credible scholarly sources.

For Community-Based Practices, reviewers will additionally consider the quality of the intervention or practice, community participation, evidence of outcomes, critical reflection, sustainability, and the transferability of lessons to other contexts.

For Case Notes, reviewers will additionally assess the significance of the case, quality of legal reasoning, engagement with relevant legal authorities, and the manuscript's contribution to legal development.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers are asked to provide a recommendation based on the quality and suitability of the manuscript. Possible recommendations include:

Accept — the manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial adjustments;
Minor Revision — the manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited revisions;
Major Revision — substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication;
Reject and Resubmit — the manuscript has potential but requires extensive redevelopment and must be submitted as a new or substantially revised manuscript, subject to editorial policy; or
Reject — the manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is unsuitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Editor.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

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

Authors should clearly indicate changes made to the manuscript where required by the journal.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, particularly when major revisions have been requested. The number of review rounds may vary depending on the extent of revisions required.

7. Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the Editorial Board after considering the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's quality, and the journal's editorial standards.

The Editor may:

accept the manuscript;
request further revision;
seek an additional independent review;
refer the manuscript to another editor or specialist reviewer; or
reject the manuscript.

In cases where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor may request an additional review or conduct an independent editorial assessment before reaching a decision.

8. Reviewer Confidentiality and Responsibilities

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. They must not:

share the manuscript or review materials with unauthorized individuals;
use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal research or professional advantage;
reproduce or distribute substantial parts of the manuscript;
contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript without editorial authorization; or
disclose their identity or the identity of other reviewers.

Reviewers should provide objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive comments. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.

If a reviewer believes that they lack the expertise necessary to evaluate the manuscript, has insufficient time to complete the review, or identifies a potential conflict of interest, they should notify the Editor promptly and decline the review where appropriate.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect their objectivity. A reviewer should decline an assignment where there is a significant personal, professional, institutional, financial, or competitive relationship with the authors or the research that could compromise impartiality.

Editors are also required to manage conflicts of interest and should not make editorial decisions on manuscripts where they have a personal or professional interest that could compromise independent judgment.

10. Ethical and Integrity Concerns

If concerns arise during peer review regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, or other forms of publication misconduct, the journal may suspend the review process and investigate the matter in accordance with its Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy.

The journal may request clarification or supporting documentation from the authors and, where appropriate, take further action consistent with recognized publication ethics standards.

11. Review Timeline

The journal seeks to conduct peer review in a timely and efficient manner. The review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the number of review rounds required.

The Editorial Team may invite additional reviewers when necessary to ensure an appropriate and sufficiently rigorous assessment.

12. Editorial Independence

Peer review decisions are based on the academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by the author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, personal characteristics, or other irrelevant considerations.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication based on the outcome of any individual review. Final publication decisions remain under the independent authority of the journal's editorial leadership.

13. Post-Publication Review

Peer review does not end the journal's responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the published scholarly record. If substantive concerns regarding a published article are subsequently identified, the journal may investigate the matter and, where necessary, publish a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with its publication ethics policies.