Peer Review Policy

Jurnal Hukum Pidana Indonesia is committed to maintaining high academic and ethical standards in the publication of scholarly work. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a rigorous editorial screening and peer review process to ensure its originality, scholarly quality, relevance, and contribution to the field of criminal law and related legal studies.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial assessment is normally reviewed by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests solely with the Editor and Editorial Board, taking into account the reviewers’ comments and recommendations.

  1. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editor or a member of the Editorial Board before being sent for external review. This preliminary assessment serves as a gatekeeping stage to ensure that only manuscripts meeting the journal’s minimum scholarly and formal standards proceed to the peer review stage.

At this stage, the Editorial Board assesses whether the manuscript:

  • falls within the aims and scope of Jurnal Hukum Pidana Indonesia;
  • demonstrates sufficient originality, academic merit, and relevance;
  • presents a clear and coherent research problem, argument, and structure;
  • complies with the journal’s author guidelines and formatting requirements;
  • meets acceptable standards of language quality and academic writing; and
  • does not show indications of plagiarism or excessive textual similarity.

The desk review may include assessment of the following elements:

  • Title, which should be concise, specific, and reflective of the manuscript’s content;
  • Abstract, which should clearly present the background, objective, method, principal findings, and implications of the study;
  • Keywords, which should accurately represent the core concepts of the manuscript;
  • Introduction, which should explain the legal problem, research gap, novelty, and objectives of the study;
  • Methodology, where applicable, which should be clearly explained and appropriate to the research purpose;
  • Analysis and Discussion, which should show analytical depth, engagement with relevant legal scholarship, and contribution to academic debate;
  • Conclusion, which should summarise the main findings consistently with the objectives of the paper; and
  • References, which should be relevant, accurate, and based primarily on reputable academic and legal sources.

Based on this preliminary assessment, the Editorial Board may decide to:

  1. Proceed to peer review, if the manuscript satisfies the minimum standards;
  2. Return the manuscript for preliminary revision, if improvements are needed before peer review; or
  3. Reject the manuscript at the desk review stage, if it is outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient scholarly quality, or substantially fails to comply with the journal’s standards.
  1. Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary editorial assessment are sent to independent reviewers under a double-blind review mechanism. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, subject-matter specialisation, and experience relevant to the manuscript under review. The Editorial Board takes reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest in reviewer selection.

Each reviewer is asked to evaluate the manuscript on several aspects, including:

  • originality and novelty of the topic or argument;
  • relevance to the field of criminal law, criminology, and broader legal scholarship;
  • clarity of research objectives and legal reasoning;
  • adequacy of methodology or doctrinal approach, where applicable;
  • analytical depth and engagement with relevant literature or legal sources;
  • coherence, organisation, and clarity of presentation; and
  • overall contribution to scholarship and legal discourse.

Reviewers provide written comments and recommendations to assist the Editor in reaching a decision. Where necessary, the manuscript may be sent to additional reviewers if the initial reports differ substantially or if further expert input is required.

  1. Editorial Decision

The Editor is responsible for making the final decision on each manuscript after considering the reviewers’ reports and recommendations. In making this decision, the Editor may also consult members of the Editorial Board where appropriate. The Editor’s decision is final.

The possible editorial decisions are:

  • Accepted as submitted;
  • Accepted with minor revisions;
  • Accepted with major revisions; or
  • Rejected.

A manuscript may be rejected for reasons including, but not limited to:

  • being outside the aims and scope of the journal;
  • lack of originality or scholarly contribution;
  • major weaknesses in analysis, structure, or legal reasoning;
  • insufficient clarity of presentation; or
  • failure to meet academic, ethical, or technical standards.

Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to revise their manuscript within the time period specified by the Editorial Board and to respond carefully to the reviewers’ comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation at the discretion of the Editor.

  1. Ethical and Quality Assurance Principles

The peer review process in Jurnal Hukum Pidana Indonesia is designed not only to determine the publishability of a manuscript, but also to improve its academic quality. The journal values fairness, confidentiality, objectivity, and scholarly integrity at every stage of review.

All manuscripts are assessed on the basis of their academic merit and relevance, without discrimination on the grounds of the authors’ institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, or personal background. Reviewers and editors are expected to maintain confidentiality, declare any conflict of interest, and provide constructive, objective, and timely evaluations.