Focus and Scope

Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan (JHP) aimed to be a peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information on legal and judiciary studies. The scope of JHP is analytical, objective, empirical, and contributive literature on the dynamics and development of legal studies, specifically in Indonesia.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Preface

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

• Jurnal Hukum and Peradilan (JHP) uses an online submission and double-blind review system for the work process. This double-blind approach makes it possible for authors and reviewers not to know each other. Submissions and peer reviews of each article are managed using this system and are assessed on the basis of the peer review policy established by JHP.
• Submission is made by means of the Online Journal System (OJS). Each author will receive an online confirmation of the submission immediately after the submission has been completed entirely and correctly. The submitted paper will first be handled by the Managing Editor to ensure that the paper complies with the guidelines set out by JHP. Inappropriate paper will be rejected without further revision. In general, the papers were rejected because of (1) the incompatibility of the subjects with the scope of the journal, and (2) being not prepared in accordance with the JHP guidelines. Rejection information will be notified to the author within 1 week after the submission.
• The selected paper will be assessed and evaluated by the Managing Editor and the Chief Editor. The evaluation will be carried out by considering the substance of the paper to meet the JHP standards, in terms of the consistency between objectives, research methods, evidence, references, conclusions, completeness of the data, accuracy of the methodology, novelty, contribution and impact on existing knowledge.
• The paper will be forwarded to the Section Editor to organize and pick the reviewers who are part of the JHP Reviewer Board. At this stage, the editor will test plagiarism using Grammarly, with a tolerance limit of 20%. It is possible for the Section Editor to notify the author of minor errors due to the wrong format, typo, or wrong citation style. After that, the paper will be returned to the author for modification. The author is required to return the corrected paper to the editor within a maximum of 1 week.
• After the paper is selected, at least two reviewers who are part of the JHP Reviewer Board will review it. The selection of reviewers considers the balance of reviews by legal experts and academics who have published their papers in reputable international journals to receive feedback in the form of content comments and suggestions for improvement. Reviewers will be given 2 weeks to return the findings of the review with status either accepted, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.
• As soon as the paper gets the results of the review and recommendations, the Editor will send the paper to the corresponding author.  For articles with a status of "rejected," there is no option for revise.  In the case of "major revision," the author will be given a maximum of 1 month to make revision and resubmit the paper again for review from the beginning.  Meanwhile, for "minor revision," time for revision is given for a maximum of 2 weeks.  Revisions may include suggestions for proofreading by natives or experts to ensure language quality.  The author is required to revise the paper as suggested by reviewers and the editorial board, as well as provide feedback on the suggestion point by point.  The author can request an extension of time to complete the revision if necessary.  Authors who do not respond or fail to submit revisions within the allotted time are deemed withdrawn from publication.
• The editor will check the results of the revised paper to ensure that all comments and responses to the review have been met, and send the revision to the reviewer for checking.  Reviewers will be given 3 days for "minor revision" to assess the suitability of the correction with the review's results. The "major revision" will take 1 week in this case.  Reviewers can make further comments if needed.  The author must complete the revision within 1 week.  This review process may repeatedly occur, depending on the comments of the reviewer and author feedback.  The review process is considered complete if the reviewer has entirely agreed to the revision.
• The final decision of the paper rests with the Chief Editor.  Paper approved for publication will be submitted to the production team for further processing. The author will get a galley proof from the production team to ensure and finalize the content.  At this stage, the author will sign the Copyright Notice and is not allowed for further revision.  Authors who do not provide feedback on galley proof within the allotted time are considered to approve the version for publication.

Publication Frequency

Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan comes out three times a year in March, July and November.

Open Access Policy

Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Archiving

This journal is archived in Indonesian Scientific Journal Database (ISJD). (http://isjd.pdii.lipi.go.id).

Article Processing Charges

Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan is an open access publication. Any article submitted to the Journal Hukum and Peradilan shall not be subject to any Article Processing Charges (APCs) or Submission Charges. This involves uploading, peer-reviewing, editing, printing, storing and archiving, and offers immediate access to full text versions of the articles.

Plagiarism Check

Plagiarism screening will be conducted by Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Editorial Board using a plagiarism checker powered by Turnitin.

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan (JHP) is a journal aims to be a leading peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers, review articles and case studies focused on law and judiciary as well as related topics that has neither been published elsewhere in any language, nor is it under review for publication anywhere. This following statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the publisher (Research Center for law and Judiciary - MARI). This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

 Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgment section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

 Duties of Editor

1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

 Duties of Reviewers

1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
2. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.  Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

Reference Management

Every paper or article submitted to Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan shall use reference management software e.g. EndNote® or Mendeley. More about EndNote, please visit http://www.endnote.com. More about Mendeley, please visit https://www.mendeley.com/

Journal Archiving

This journal is archived in Indonesian Scientific Journal Database (ISJD) and Garba Rujukan Digital (Garuda)

Accreditation Certificate

Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan was initially accredited by LIPI in 2017 based on certificate number 792/Akred/P2MI-LIPI/11/2017. The accreditation system unification under Ristek Dikti have caused the accreditation renewal into Ristek Dikti certificate number 30/E/KPT2018 (SINTA 2).

valid thru: October 2022

Abstracting and Indexing by: