Editorial and Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Journal Juris Sapientia (JJS) undergo a rigorous and multi-stage editorial evaluation process to ensure academic quality, originality, scientific integrity, and compliance with international publishing ethics standards. The editorial workflow consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Technical Screening

   Upon submission, each manuscript is initially evaluated by the Managing Editor to ensure compliance with the journal’s technical and ethical requirements. This stage includes:

   • Verification of conformity with the journal’s Author Guidelines, manuscript template, and citation style requirements using the Chicago Manual of Style 17th Edition (Full Note).
   • Plagiarism screening using Turnitin software to ensure the originality of the manuscript and identify potential ethical concerns.
   • Preliminary assessment of the manuscript’s relevance to the focus and scope of Journal Juris Sapientia (JJS), including jurisprudence, philosophy of law, legal theory, legal ethics, sociology of law, law and society studies, constitutional theory, human rights theory, legal interpretation, critical legal studies, and interdisciplinary legal studies related to contemporary legal thought and society.

   Manuscripts that fail to meet the technical, ethical, or thematic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or declined without proceeding to the next stage.

2. Editorial Evaluation by Section Editor

   Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to the relevant Section Editor for substantive editorial evaluation. At this stage, the editor evaluates:

   • The academic relevance and significance of the manuscript;
   • The originality, novelty, and scientific contribution of the study;
   • The clarity of research objectives, legal arguments, and methodological approaches;
   • The suitability of the manuscript with the journal’s publication standards and scope.

   Based on the editorial assessment, the manuscript may be:

   • Forwarded to the peer review stage;
   • Returned to the author for preliminary revision;
   • Rejected if it does not meet the journal’s academic and editorial standards.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

   Manuscripts that proceed to the review stage undergo a double-blind peer review process conducted by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript topic.

   In this process:

   • The identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to maintain objectivity, fairness, and academic integrity.
   • Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript’s originality, theoretical framework, methodology, legal analysis, coherence, academic contribution, and clarity of presentation.
   • Reviewers provide constructive comments, recommendations, and suggestions intended to improve the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

   The review process generally takes approximately two to four weeks depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

   Detailed reviewer policies, review procedures, ethical responsibilities, and reviewer assessment criteria for Journal Juris Sapientia (JJS) can be accessed through the reviewer guideline page at: https://journals.triazpustaka.id/jjs/guideline_reviewer .

4. Final Editorial Decision

   Following the completion of the peer review process, the Managing Editor, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief and editorial board, makes the final editorial decision based on the reviewers’ reports and recommendations.

   The possible editorial decisions include:

   • Accepted; The manuscript is accepted for publication without revision.
   • Accepted with Minor Revisions; The manuscript requires limited revisions that must be completed within the specified timeframe.
   • Accepted with Major Revisions; The manuscript requires substantial revision in accordance with reviewers’ comments prior to publication consideration.
   • Resubmission Required (Conditional Rejection); The manuscript requires extensive revision and may be reconsidered as a new submission after substantial improvement.
   • Rejected; The manuscript does not satisfy the academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, or editorial standards of the journal.

   The editorial board reserves the right to make the final publication decision in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics, peer review policies, and academic standards.