Peer Review Policy

The Indonesian Minority Justice Review (IMJR) applies a rigorous double-anonymous peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of all research articles and other eligible scholarly submissions.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to IMJR undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Team to assess their:

  • relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;

  • originality and scholarly contribution;

  • academic quality and clarity;

  • compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines;

  • methodological and ethical standards; and

  • compliance with applicable publication ethics requirements.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, do not meet minimum academic standards, or fail to comply with essential submission requirements may be rejected at the editorial screening stage without external peer review.

2. Plagiarism and Originality Check

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are subject to plagiarism and similarity screening using appropriate detection tools. Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts are original and properly acknowledge all sources.

A manuscript may be rejected or returned for substantial revision if significant unattributed overlap, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct are identified.

3. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

IMJR employs a double-anonymous peer review system. Under this process, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are likewise concealed from authors.

Each manuscript considered suitable for external review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently, taking into consideration:

  • originality and significance of the research;

  • clarity and relevance of the research questions;

  • engagement with relevant literature;

  • theoretical or conceptual contribution;

  • appropriateness and transparency of the methodology;

  • quality and interpretation of evidence or analysis;

  • coherence of argumentation;

  • validity of conclusions;

  • ethical considerations, where applicable; and

  • relevance to the journal’s scope and contribution to the field.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and relevance to the manuscript under consideration. The Editorial Team seeks to avoid assigning reviewers who have personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationships with the authors that could compromise the impartiality of the review process.

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting an invitation to review. Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the Editor’s independent assessment, the possible editorial decisions are:

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

  2. Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision can be made.

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

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

  5. Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards, scope, originality, or scholarly requirements.

A recommendation from a reviewer is advisory and does not automatically determine the final editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor retains responsibility for the final publication decision.

6. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. Authors should clearly indicate how each substantive comment has been addressed and identify changes made to the manuscript.

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

7. Reviewer Confidentiality and Conduct

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and associated materials as confidential documents. Manuscripts under review must not be shared, discussed, copied, or used for personal or professional purposes without authorization from the journal.

Reviewers should provide constructive, evidence-based, and respectful evaluations. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should also identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited and notify the Editor of any concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, or other forms of research or publication misconduct.

8. Conflict of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence the review or publication process.

Editors will not handle manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest. Where appropriate, an independent editor will be appointed to oversee the editorial and peer review process.

9. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and scholarly contribution of a manuscript. Decisions are not based on the authors’ nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, institutional affiliation, political views, or other personal characteristics.

The journal is committed to maintaining editorial independence and ensuring that peer review is conducted fairly, transparently, and without inappropriate influence from authors, reviewers, institutions, sponsors, or other external parties.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made as a result of a significant procedural error, misunderstanding of the manuscript, or demonstrable failure to consider relevant information may submit an appeal to the Editorial Team.

Appeals must provide a clear and substantive justification and should not merely disagree with the academic judgment of reviewers. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor where appropriate. The decision following an appeal is final.

Complaints concerning editorial procedures, reviewer conduct, conflicts of interest, or publication ethics may be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief. The journal will investigate complaints fairly and confidentially in accordance with applicable publication ethics standards.

11. Publication Ethics

IMJR is committed to maintaining high standards of research and publication integrity. The journal follows recognized principles and best practices in scholarly publishing and expects authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold standards concerning originality, authorship, research ethics, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity, and correction or retraction of the scholarly record.

Where allegations of research or publication misconduct arise, the journal may conduct an investigation and take appropriate action, including requesting clarification, rejecting a manuscript, issuing a correction, retracting a published article, or notifying the relevant institution when necessary.

12. Typical Review Timeline

The journal endeavors to conduct peer review in a timely manner while prioritizing the quality and integrity of the review process. Review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and editorial workload.

Authors may contact the Editorial Office regarding the status of their manuscript if there has been an unusually prolonged delay in the review process.

13. Review Transparency

IMJR maintains appropriate records of the editorial and peer review process. Reviewer identities remain confidential under the double-anonymous review model unless disclosure is otherwise required by applicable policy or agreed upon by the relevant parties.

The journal reserves the right to modify its peer review procedures when necessary to improve the integrity, efficiency, and quality of the publication process.