PEER REVIEW POLICY
Jurnal Ius Constituendum (JIC) applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure that all published manuscripts meet appropriate standards of originality, academic quality, relevance, and scholarly contribution to legal studies. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by the editorial staff to assess their compliance with the journal's aims and scope, submission guidelines, and basic quality criteria. The editorial team may also conduct an initial similarity check to identify potential plagiarism or substantial overlap with previously published work.
Manuscripts that, in the editor's judgment, do not meet the journal's aims, scope, or basic quality standards may be rejected without external review. Manuscripts considered potentially suitable and relevant to the journal's readership will proceed to the double-blind peer review stage.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review
Submissions considered suitable for further consideration are generally evaluated by two or more independent experts with relevant expertise in the subject area. Under the double-blind review system, reviewers do not know the identities of the authors, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
Reviewers are asked to assess the following aspects of each manuscript:
- Originality and novelty of the manuscript;
- Relevance to the aims and scope of Jurnal Ius Constituendum;
- Scientific soundness, logical coherence, and analytical rigor;
- Clarity of writing, organization, and presentation;
- Appropriateness of the research methods and supporting arguments;
- Contribution to the development of legal scholarship and practice; and
- Whether the manuscript substantially duplicates previously published work.
Reviewers provide recommendations and constructive comments to assist the editor in determining whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Editorial decisions are based on the reviewers' reports and, where necessary, consultation with members of the Editorial Board.
3. Editorial Decisions
Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editor's evaluation, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
- Accepted: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any necessary editorial and production adjustments.
- Minor Revision: The author is required to make limited corrections or clarifications before the manuscript can be accepted.
- Major Revision: The author must undertake substantial revisions to address the reviewers' and editor's comments. The revised manuscript may be returned for further review.
- Rejected: The manuscript is not accepted for publication because it does not meet the journal's academic standards, scope, or publication requirements.
Authors are expected to address reviewers' comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the editorial team. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.
4. Editorial Authority
The Editor-in-Chief of Jurnal Ius Constituendum (JIC) retains full authority over final publication decisions. Such decisions are made independently, taking into consideration the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's academic quality, its relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and its compliance with the journal's editorial policies.
5. Estimated Timeline for the Article Publication Process
The following timeline provides an estimate of the main stages from initial submission to publication. The actual duration may vary depending on the quality of the manuscript, the extent of revisions required, reviewer availability, the time taken by authors to respond, and the journal's editorial workload.
| Stage | Process | Estimated Duration |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Initial Editorial Assessment: assessment of the manuscript's compliance with the journal's aims and scope, submission guidelines, and basic quality criteria. | Depends on the editorial workload |
| 2 | Author Revision Following Initial Assessment: the author makes preliminary corrections if requested by the editorial team. | Approximately 1 week |
| 3 | Double-Blind Peer Review: independent reviewers evaluate the manuscript's originality, relevance, academic quality, and contribution to legal scholarship. | Target: approximately 2 months; may take up to 4 months |
| 4 | Revision Based on Reviewers' Comments: the author revises the manuscript in response to the reviewers' and editor's feedback. | Approximately 2 weeks |
| 5 | Evaluation of the Revised Manuscript: the editor evaluates the revisions and may seek further reviewer input where necessary. | Approximately 2 weeks |
| 6 | Copyediting, Layout, and Proofreading: the accepted manuscript undergoes editorial and production preparation. | Approximately 2 weeks |
| 7 | Author Confirmation of the Final Manuscript: the author checks the proofs and confirms the final version. | Approximately 1 week |
| 8 | Finalization and Publication: the journal completes the final publication preparations and publishes the article according to its editorial schedule. | Approximately 1 week |
6. Review Period and Publication Disclaimer
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated through double-blind peer review, taking into account their contribution, originality, and relevance. The editor will inform authors of the review results as soon as possible, with a target of approximately 2 months. However, due to fluctuations in submission volume, reviewer availability, and the time required to complete the evaluation, the review process may take up to 4 months.
All durations listed in the publication timeline are estimates rather than guaranteed deadlines. The total time from submission to publication may exceed the estimated period, particularly when major revisions, additional review rounds, or other editorial requirements are necessary.
