Peer Review Process
The manuscript review process in Jurnal Hukum Mimbar Justitia applies a double-blind review system, in which the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential throughout the process.
-
Each article submitted to the editorial office will first be selected through an initial review process conducted by the Editorial Board, in accordance with the relevant field of specialization, to ensure that it meets the JHMJ criteria.
-
Manuscripts will then be sent to two anonymous reviewers. If necessary, a third reviewer may be involved to provide further recommendations. Comments from the reviewers will subsequently be forwarded to the corresponding author for follow-up.
-
The editor-in-chief will notify the authors of the review results as soon as possible, ideally within four weeks. The final decision regarding the acceptance of a manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief (together with the editorial board, if necessary) based on the reviewers' critical comments.
JHMJ recognizes four types of editorial decisions:
- Accepted, as is;
- Accepted with Minor Revisions (the author is required to revise within a specified time);
- Accepted with Major Revisions (the author is required to revise within a specified time);
- Rejected (generally due to reasons such as being beyond the journal's scope and aims, major technical issues, or lack of clarity in presentation).
In reviewing the submitted articles, reviewers refer to the assessment guidelines provided by the Editorial Board. The assessment criteria include the originality of the idea, the accuracy of the theory used in analyzing the problem, and the writing methodology. The editor also screens all incoming articles for plagiarism using Turnitin or iThenticate before they are sent to the reviewers. If a manuscript shows a similarity index of more than 20%, the article will be returned to the author for revision of the plagiarized content.
