Peer Review Policy and Process

The Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies (IJCLS) applies a peer-review policy to maintain the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of published articles. All manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed sections are initially assessed by the editors to determine their suitability for the journal's focus, scope, and submission guidelines.

Manuscripts that satisfy the initial editorial requirements proceed to a double-blind peer-review process. The final decision regarding publication is made by the editor based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, together with the journal's editorial policies.

1. Peer Review Policy

IJCLS employs a double-blind peer-review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Neither authors nor reviewers should disclose or seek to establish each other's identities in connection with a manuscript under review.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial assessment is normally sent to at least two reviewers selected according to their expertise, specialization, or relevant reviewing experience. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's originality, clarity of presentation, academic quality, and contribution to legal studies.

Editors are responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers, avoiding conflicts of interest, considering the review reports, and making the final editorial decision. The peer-review process is intended to support fair, independent, and academically rigorous evaluation.

Principles of Peer Review
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts and review reports must be treated as confidential documents.
  • Objectivity: Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.
  • Expertise: Reviewers should have relevant academic knowledge or experience in the manuscript's subject area.
  • Conflict of interest: Reviewers and editors should disclose relevant conflicts and avoid participation where impartiality may be compromised.
  • Editorial independence: The final publication decision rests with the editor, informed by the reviewers' assessments.
2. Review Process

The IJCLS review process consists of initial editorial assessment, double-blind peer review, and an editorial decision. Additional revision or evaluation may be required depending on the reviewers' recommendations and the editor's assessment.

STEP 01
Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment
The editor assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal's focus and scope and complies with the submission guidelines, formatting requirements, and relevant publication ethics standards. The manuscript may also undergo a similarity check. Submissions that are unsuitable or fail to meet essential requirements may be returned or rejected before external review.
STEP 02
Author Revision Following Initial Assessment
Where revisions are requested before peer review, authors must address the editorial comments and resubmit the manuscript within the specified timeframe. Resubmission does not automatically guarantee that the manuscript will proceed to external review.
STEP 03
Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are sent to at least two reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers independently assess the manuscript's originality, clarity, academic merit, and contribution to legal studies. The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential.
STEP 04
Editorial Decision
After considering the reviewers' reports and recommendations, the editor makes the final decision. The available decision categories are:
  • Accepted as is: The manuscript is accepted without further substantive revision.
  • Accepted with minor revisions: The authors must address specified minor issues within the given timeframe.
  • Major revisions required: Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
  • Rejected: The manuscript is not accepted for publication.
STEP 05
Revision and Further Evaluation
Authors receiving a revision decision must respond to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript within the stipulated timeframe. During the revision process, authors must comply with the requirements and procedures set out in the Revised Manuscript Policy. The editor may request a further review round or additional editorial consultation where necessary. A revision request does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance.
Important: Revision Requirements
Authors are required to follow the journal's specific instructions for preparing and submitting a revised manuscript.
Read the Revised Manuscript Policy ↗
Opens the IJCLS Revised Manuscript Policy page.
STEP 06
Acceptance, Production, and Publication
Once the manuscript has received final acceptance, it proceeds to production, including layout editing, proofreading, author confirmation of the final version, issue scheduling, DOI registration where applicable, and publication.
3. Estimated Timeline for the Article Publication Process
Overall Estimated Publication Timeline
24–48 Weeks
The overall article publication process is estimated to take approximately 24–48 weeks from initial submission to final publication. Actual processing times depend on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the timeliness and quality of author revisions, additional review requirements, and the journal's editorial workflow. This timeframe is an estimate and does not guarantee publication by a fixed date.
No. Publication Stage Estimated Duration
1 Basic Review (Initial Editorial Assessment) 4–8 weeks
2 Author Revision Following the Basic Review 1–2 weeks
3 Peer Review Process 8–16 weeks
4 Revision Based on Reviewer Comments 2–4 weeks
5 Discussion and Reviewer Response Evaluation 2–4 weeks
6 Layout Editing and Proofreading 2–4 weeks
7 Author Confirmation of the Final Manuscript 1–2 weeks
8 Finalization and Publication 2–8 weeks
4. Author Responsibilities

Throughout the review and publication process, authors are expected to:

  • Ensure that the manuscript complies with the journal's author guidelines and template.
  • Respond to editorial and reviewer comments professionally and within the specified deadlines.
  • Provide a clear, point-by-point explanation of revisions when requested.
  • Follow the requirements stated in the Revised Manuscript Policy when preparing a revised submission.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of the double-blind review process.
  • Review and confirm the final manuscript before publication.
Important Editorial Note
The stated timeframes are estimates and may vary depending on reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds, and editorial requirements. The editor retains responsibility for the final publication decision. Meeting the estimated timeline does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or publication in a particular issue.