Focus and Scope

Jurnal Yustisia Merdeka is a peer-reviewed journal with a focus on the field of Legal Studies covering the scope of Civil Law, Economic Law, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, State Administrative Law, International Law, Environmental Law, Islamic Law, Agrarian Law, Law Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure Law, Administrative Procedure Law and other fields related to Legal Studies. We are interested in legal issues in these fields both in Indonesia and around the world.

Peer Review Process

Yustisia Merdeka journal maintains the standards of double blind-peer review while increasing the efficiency of the process. All research articles published in the Yustisia Merdeka journal undergo full peer review, key characteristics of which are listed below:

1. Yustisia Merdeka is applying a two-stage process: After the technical check your submission will be first reviewed by the editorial team for publication suitability in the journal. If suitable, it will then be assigned to one of the editors for handling the review and decision process.
2. If your manuscript matches the scope and satisfies the criteria of Yustisia Merdeka , your paper will be assigned to an Editor. The Editor will identify and contact reviewers who are acknowledged experts in the field. Since peer-review is a voluntary service, it can take some time but please be assured that the Editor will regularly remind reviewers if they do not reply in a timely manner. During this stage, the status will appear as "Under Review".
3. Once the Editor has received the minimum number of expert reviews, the status will change to "Required Reviews Complete".
4. It is also possible that the Editor may decide that your manuscript does not meet the journal criteria or scope and that it should not be considered further. In this case, the Editor will immediately notify you that the manuscript has been rejected and may recommend a more suitable journal.

Peer review of referred papers:

Editors of the Yustisia Merdeka journal will decide promptly whether to accept, reject or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting journals. Also, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. The authors will be advised when Editors decide, further review is required. Submitted articles will be first review by the editor for the topic and writing style according to the guidelines. All manuscripts are subject to double-blind peer-review, both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process to meet standards of academic excellence. In short, the steps are:

1. Manuscript Submission (by author).
2. Manuscript Check and Selection (by manager and editors).
3. Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review. Prior to further processing steps, plagiarism check using Turnitin is applied for each manuscript.
4. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers).
5. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on reviewers comments).
6. Paper Revision (by author)
7. Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestion (by author) with the similar flow to point number 1.
8. If the reviewer seems to be satisfied with revision, notification for acceptance (by editor).
9. Galley proof and publishing process.

The steps point number 1 to 5 are considered as 1 round of the peer-reviewing process (see the grey area in the figure). The editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

1. Accepted, as it is. The journal will publish the paper in its original form;
2. Accepted by Minor Revisions, the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections (let authors revised with stipulated time);
3. Accepted by Major Revisions, the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors (let authors revised with stipulated time);
4. Resubmit (conditional rejection), the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes;
5. Rejected (outright rejection), the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.

Publication Frequency

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR EDITORS

1.Publication Decision

The editor of theJurnal YUSTISIA MERDEKAis responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work and its contribution to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

2.Objective Assessment

The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without having discrimination to religious belief, ethnic origin, gender, or citizenship of the author.

3.Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the editorial board, as appropriate.

4.Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through blind review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

5.Cooperation in Investigations

The editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

 

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR REVIEWERS

1.Contribution to Editorial Decision

Blind review conducted by the reviewer assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

2.Promptness

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor.

3.Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

4.Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

5.Completeness and Originality of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

6.Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTHORS

1.Reporting Standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

2.Data Access

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

3.Originality and Plagiarism

Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Self-plagiarism or auto-plagiarism is one type of plagiarism in which the authors use results or words from their own published articles without citing them appropriately.

4.Standards of Paper Submission

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

5.Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.

6.Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

7.Hazards and Human Subjects

If the work involves procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.If the work involves the use of human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.Appropriate consents, permissions and releases must be obtained where an author wishes to include case details or other personal information in the manuscript. Written consents must be retained by the author and copies of the consents or evidence that such consents have been obtained must be provided to the journal on request.

8.Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Open Access Policy

All articles published by the Jurnal YUSTISIA MERDEKA are openly accessible on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports greater global knowledge exchange. It means:

Every reader has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles published in Jurnal YUSTISIA MERDEKA, and every reader is free to re-use the published article if proper citation of the original publication is given.

Sponsors

Universitas Merdeka Madiun