Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Indonesian Research Journal in Legal Studies (IRJILS) will go through a rigorous review process to ensure the quality and integrity of published articles. The review process consists of the following steps:

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

    • The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team will conduct a preliminary check to assess the manuscript’s relevance, originality, and compliance with the journal’s focus, scope, and author guidelines.

    • Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements will be returned to the authors for revision or rejected.

  2. Double-Blind Peer Review

    • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be sent to at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

    • The review process is double-blind, meaning that the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential.

  3. Review Criteria
    Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

    • Originality and contribution to legal studies

    • Clarity of objectives and research questions

    • Appropriateness of research methods

    • Depth of analysis and discussion

    • Relevance and accuracy of references

    • Language quality and readability

  4. Review Timeframe

    • The peer review process usually takes 1–3 months.

    • Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluation within 4 weeks after receiving the manuscript.

  5. Editorial Decision
    Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial team may decide to:

    • Accept the manuscript without revision

    • Accept with minor revisions

    • Request major revisions (with possible re-review)

    • Reject the manuscript

  6. Revision Process

    • Authors are required to revise their manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and submit the revised version within the given timeframe.

    • The revised manuscript may be sent back to the reviewers for further evaluation if necessary.

  7. Final Decision

    • The final decision on acceptance or rejection lies with the Editor-in-Chief, considering the reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of revisions.