Peer Review Process

KLAUSULA: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara, Hukum Administrasi, Pidana dan Perdata

KLAUSULA applies a peer-review process to ensure that submitted manuscripts meet the journal's academic, ethical, and editorial standards. Each manuscript is evaluated based on its relevance to the journal's scope, originality, legal argumentation, methodology, use of sources, and contribution to legal scholarship.

Editorial and Review Stages

1. Initial Screening

The editor checks the manuscript for conformity with the journal's focus and scope, article template, metadata completeness, basic originality, publication ethics, and similarity level.

2. Editor Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an editor or section editor according to the manuscript topic and editorial responsibility.

3. Reviewer Assignment

The editor appoints reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript. Reviewer selection should consider academic competence, independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

4. Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's scientific quality, legal reasoning, methodology, use of legal authorities and scholarly references, originality, consistency of analysis, and contribution to the field.

5. Author Revision

Authors are required to revise the manuscript in response to reviewer and editor comments and to provide clear responses to the requested revisions.

6. Editorial Decision

The editor makes an editorial decision based on reviewer recommendations and the quality of the revised manuscript. Decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission for review, or rejection.

7. Copyediting

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting for language, references, metadata, citation consistency, formatting, and compliance with journal style.

8. Production

The manuscript is prepared for publication through layout, galley preparation, metadata verification, page assignment, and DOI checking.

9. Publication

The final article is scheduled for an appropriate volume and issue and published after editorial and production checks are completed.

Review Principles

Reviewers should provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments.
Manuscripts and review materials must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers and editors must avoid conflicts of interest.
Editorial decisions should be based on academic merit and reviewer recommendations.
Authors are responsible for responding to review comments and submitting revisions within the requested period.

Review Model

The journal applies a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other during the review process.