Guidelines for Reviewers

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Hukum Pidana Indonesia and approved for external evaluation are reviewed through a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, subject-matter competence, and familiarity with the relevant area of criminal law, criminology, and related legal studies.

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal. Reviews must be conducted in a fair, objective, confidential, and timely manner, and should contribute constructively to the improvement of the manuscript.

  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide an objective and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript;
  • maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and its contents;
  • disclose any conflict of interest and decline the review if such conflict exists;
  • complete the review within the specified timeframe; and
  • provide constructive, clear, and academically grounded feedback.

Manuscripts under review must not be used for personal advantage or shared with third parties without permission from the Editorial Board.

  1. Review Process and Technical Instructions

Reviewers are requested to complete the review form provided by the journal and to give detailed comments directly in the manuscript file using Track Changes and/or Comments in Microsoft Word. General or overly brief comments are not sufficient.

Reviewers should:

  • provide in-text comments directly in the manuscript file;
  • indicate clearly where revisions are required;
  • distinguish between major issues and minor suggestions;
  • ensure that comments are specific, actionable, and easy for authors to follow; and
  • include a brief overall evaluation in the review form if necessary.
  1. Evaluation Criteria

In reviewing manuscripts, reviewers are expected to assess:

  • Originality and novelty of the research or legal argument;
  • Relevance to the field of criminal law, criminology, and broader legal scholarship;
  • Clarity of research problem and objectives;
  • Quality of legal reasoning, criminological analysis, and analytical depth;
  • Use of legal sources, empirical materials where applicable, and engagement with existing literature;
  • Methodological soundness appropriate to the nature of the study;
  • Structure, coherence, and clarity of presentation; and
  • Contribution to academic and practical discourse in criminal law and criminology.
  1. Recommendation

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers are asked to select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accepted without revision
  • Accepted with minor revisions
  • Accepted with major revisions
  • Rejected

Recommendations should be consistent with the comments provided in the manuscript and review form.

  1. Ethical Standards

Reviewers must adhere to ethical standards in the review process, including:

  • avoiding personal criticism of the author(s);
  • using respectful and professional language;
  • identifying potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data misuse, or improper attribution; and
  • ensuring that their evaluation is based solely on academic merit, without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or other personal factors.
  1. Important Note

Reviews that do not include substantive and specific comments in the manuscript file may be returned to the reviewer for completion.

The Editorial Board of Jurnal Hukum Pidana Indonesia highly values detailed and well-reasoned reviews, as they are essential to ensuring a rigorous, fair, and high-quality publication process.