Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW POLICY

Jurnal Tematik applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure that published manuscripts meet appropriate standards of originality, academic quality, relevance, and scholarly contribution to legal studies. The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed for compliance with the journal's aims and scope, submission guidelines, and basic quality criteria. An initial similarity check may also be conducted to identify potential plagiarism or substantial overlap with previously published work.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be rejected without external review. Manuscripts considered suitable will proceed to the peer review stage.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Suitable submissions are generally evaluated by two or more independent experts with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

Reviewers assess the following aspects:

  • Originality and novelty;
  • Relevance to the aims and scope of JIC;
  • Scientific soundness, logical coherence, and analytical rigor;
  • Clarity, organization, and presentation;
  • Appropriateness of research methods and supporting arguments;
  • Contribution to legal scholarship and practice; and
  • Potential duplication of previously published work.

Reviewers provide recommendations and constructive comments. Editorial decisions are based on the review reports and, where necessary, consultation with the Editorial Board.

3. Editorial Decisions

Accepted

Accepted for publication, subject to any necessary editorial and production adjustments.

Minor Revision

Limited corrections or clarifications are required before acceptance.

Major Revision

Substantial revisions are required. The revised manuscript may be returned for further review.

Rejected

The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic standards, scope, or publication requirements.

Authors must address reviewers' comments carefully and submit revisions within the period specified by the editorial team. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

4. Editorial Authority

The Editor-in-Chief retains full authority over final publication decisions. Decisions are made independently, considering the reviewers' reports, academic quality, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and compliance with editorial policies.

5. Estimated Timeline for the Article Publication Process

The following timeline outlines the estimated duration of each stage. Actual processing times may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, author response times, revision requirements, and editorial workload.

No.

Stage

Estimated Duration

1

Initial Editorial Assessment
Assessment of scope, submission compliance, and basic quality.

Depends on editorial workload

2

Author Revision Following Initial Assessment
Preliminary corrections, if requested.

Approximately 1 week

3

Double-Blind Peer Review
Independent assessment of originality, relevance, quality, and contribution.

Target: 2 months
May take up to 4 months

4

Revision Following Review
Revisions in response to reviewers' and editor's comments.

Approximately 2 weeks

5

Evaluation of Revised Manuscript
Editorial assessment and further reviewer input, if necessary.

Approximately 2 weeks

6

Copyediting, Layout, and Proofreading
Editorial and production preparation.

Approximately 2 weeks

7

Author Confirmation
Author checks and confirms the final proofs.

Approximately 1 week

8

Finalization and Publication
Final production and publication according to the journal schedule.

Approximately 1 week

6. Review Period and Publication Disclaimer

Target review period: approximately 2 months.

The review process may take up to 4 months due to submission volume, reviewer availability, and the time required to complete evaluations.

All durations are estimates and are not 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.