Peer Review Process

TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum applies a rigorous peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of every manuscript submitted to the journal. All manuscripts are evaluated according to the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, publication ethics policies, and scholarly standards in legal studies.

Type of Peer Review

TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum applies a double-anonymous peer review process. In this process, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. Authors must ensure that the manuscript file prepared for peer review does not contain information that directly reveals their identities.

Peer review is conducted by reviewers who are independent of the journal's editorial staff and who possess relevant expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic competence, scholarly expertise, research or publication experience, reviewing experience where applicable, and suitability for the manuscript's subject area.

Peer Review Process and Stages

The peer review process consists of the following main stages:

  1. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening: The submitted manuscript is checked for conformity with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, manuscript format, scholarly standards, publication ethics requirements, and basic editorial requirements.
  2. Similarity Screening: Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are checked for similarity using iThenticate or another appropriate similarity-checking tool.
  3. Reviewer Assignment: Each manuscript that passes the editorial and similarity screening is assigned to exactly two qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter.
  4. Double-Anonymous Peer Review: Both reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript without access to the author's identity, while their identities remain confidential to the authors.
  5. Editorial Evaluation: The editor evaluates both reviewers' reports together with the manuscript's quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and overall suitability for publication.
  6. Revision and Reassessment: Where revisions are required, authors must respond to the reviewers' comments and revise the manuscript. The revised manuscript may be reassessed by the editor and, where necessary, returned to the original reviewers.
  7. Final Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief, assigned editor, or editorial board makes the final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations and the journal's editorial and publication ethics policies.

Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript is first screened by the Managing Editor and/or the assigned editor to determine whether the manuscript:

  1. fits the Focus and Scope of TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum;
  2. follows the Author Guidelines and manuscript template;
  3. has an adequate academic structure, clarity, and scholarly presentation;
  4. meets basic standards of academic writing, legal analysis, research methodology, and citation;
  5. complies with the journal's publication ethics policies;
  6. is not under consideration by another journal;
  7. contains no apparent serious research misconduct or publication malpractice; and
  8. contains the required manuscript components and declarations, where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic editorial requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected before external peer review.

The initial editorial screening is normally completed within two weeks after submission. This is a target timeframe and may vary depending on submission volume and the completeness of the manuscript.

Similarity Check

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are checked for similarity using iThenticate or another appropriate similarity-checking tool. TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum applies a maximum similarity tolerance of 20%, excluding the bibliography, in accordance with its Plagiarism Policy.

The similarity percentage is not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision. The editorial team considers the nature and location of the similarity, citation accuracy, quotation practices, legitimate overlap, previous publications, and whether the identified similarity indicates plagiarism, redundant publication, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other publication misconduct.

Manuscripts with excessive or problematic similarity, improper citation, plagiarism, redundant publication, or other indications of publication misconduct may be returned to the authors for clarification or revision, rejected before peer review, or handled in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Policy and Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies.

Assignment and Qualifications of Reviewers

Each manuscript that passes the editorial screening and similarity check is assigned to exactly two reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter. The two-reviewer requirement applies to all manuscripts undergoing external peer review under this policy.

Reviewers may be selected from the journal's reviewer database, academic networks, or other qualified scholarly experts in relevant areas of legal scholarship.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic and professional expertise, knowledge or experience in the relevant field of legal scholarship, scholarly publications or research experience, and, where applicable, prior experience in peer review. Reviewers must be able to provide an objective, independent, constructive, and timely assessment of the manuscript.

In selecting reviewers, the editorial team considers the suitability of each reviewer's expertise and seeks to avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

Reviewers who have a conflict of interest, lack the necessary expertise, or cannot complete the review within the required timeframe must decline the invitation and inform the editor promptly. If a reviewer withdraws or becomes unavailable, the editor will appoint a qualified replacement so that the manuscript is evaluated by two reviewers.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. relevance to the Focus and Scope of TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum;
  2. originality and contribution to legal scholarship;
  3. clarity of the research problem, objectives, and legal arguments;
  4. appropriateness and adequacy of the research method or legal analysis;
  5. quality, depth, accuracy, and coherence of the discussion;
  6. accuracy and relevance of legal sources, legislation, court decisions, literature, and citations;
  7. consistency with the journal's style, structure, and referencing requirements;
  8. ethical compliance, including proper citation and avoidance of plagiarism;
  9. clarity of presentation, organization, language, and readability; and
  10. significance of the manuscript for legal scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and the development of law.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, evidence-based, and constructive comments and recommendations that assist the editor in making an editorial decision and help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

Review Timeline

The standard review period is approximately three weeks after the reviewer accepts the review invitation. This is a target timeframe, and the actual review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the quality of revisions, or the need for additional assessment.

If a reviewer requires additional time, the reviewer should inform the editorial team as soon as possible. The editorial team may extend the review period or appoint a replacement reviewer when necessary.

Where the review process requires additional time, the editorial team may inform the author through the journal system or an official communication channel.

Editorial Decision

The editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, assigned editor, or editorial board based on both reviewers' comments, the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and conformity with the journal's editorial policies.

TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum applies the following editorial decisions:

  1. Accepted: The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantive revision.
  2. Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires limited revisions before publication.
  3. Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be reassessed by the editor and/or reviewers before a final acceptance decision.
  4. Rejected: The manuscript is not suitable for publication because of reasons such as being outside the journal's scope, insufficient academic contribution, serious methodological or analytical problems, lack of originality, inadequate presentation, ethical concerns, or failure to meet the journal's standards.

Reviewer recommendations are important considerations in the editorial decision but do not automatically determine the outcome. The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the editorial team. If the two reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor will carefully evaluate both reports and may request clarification or further assessment before making a decision. Any additional assessment does not change the journal's policy of assigning two reviewers to the manuscript.

Revision and Reassessment

Authors receiving a revision decision must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and editorial instructions. Authors are expected to provide a point-by-point response explaining how each substantive reviewer comment has been addressed or, where a suggestion is not adopted, providing a reasoned explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the editor and, when necessary, returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. The extent of reassessment depends on the nature and extent of the required revisions.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeframe, without prior communication with the editorial team, may result in the manuscript being withdrawn from the editorial process.

Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

All manuscripts submitted to TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to unauthorized parties.

Reviewers must conduct their assessments objectively and constructively. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers must provide clear arguments supporting their comments and recommendations.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, ideas, data, or other materials obtained through the peer review process for personal, professional, academic, or financial advantage.

Reviewers must not share the manuscript or its contents with other persons without prior authorization from the journal. Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript unless authorized by the editorial team.

In accordance with the journal's AI Tools Usage Policy, reviewers are strictly prohibited from using AI tools or AI-assisted systems to analyze, evaluate, summarize, translate, score, assess, or otherwise assist in reviewing assigned manuscripts. Reviewers must not use AI tools to draft, generate, edit, or substantially prepare peer-review comments, recommendations, or reports. Manuscripts and confidential review materials must not be uploaded to AI systems.

Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting or undertaking a review assignment. Conflicts may be financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, collaborative, or competitive in nature.

A reviewer must decline the assignment when a conflict could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, the objectivity or fairness of the review. If a conflict becomes apparent after the review has started, the reviewer must promptly inform the editor and refrain from further review activities until receiving further instructions.

Editors must also avoid assigning manuscripts to reviewers whose conflicts of interest could compromise the independence or impartiality of the peer review process.

No Fast-Track Publication

TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum does not offer, accept, or provide any fast-track publication service. All manuscripts must follow the journal's standard editorial screening, similarity checking, peer review, revision, and editorial decision process.

Requests for expedited review or publication outside the standard editorial workflow will not be accepted. Payment, sponsorship, institutional affiliation, or requests for accelerated publication do not influence reviewer assignment, review outcomes, or editorial decisions.

Publication Ethics and COPE Principles

TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum conducts its peer review process in accordance with recognized principles of publication ethics and refers to the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, assess manuscripts objectively, declare competing interests, review only manuscripts within their area of competence, provide constructive and evidence-based feedback, and complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

The peer review process is intended to support fair, independent, and rigorous editorial decisions based on the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of each manuscript.

Relation to Other Journal Policies

The peer review process operates together with TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum's other publication ethics policies, including the Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies, Plagiarism Policy, and AI Tools Usage Policy. Issues involving research misconduct, conflicts of interest, post-publication concerns, corrections, retractions, or other publication ethics matters are handled in accordance with the applicable journal policies.