REVIEWER'S GUIDE

The Indonesian Journal of Law Research (IJOLARES) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, objective, confidential, and constructive peer-review process. Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of articles published by the journal.

IJOLARES uses a Double-Blind Peer Review process. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and professionally and to provide constructive comments that can assist authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts.

This guideline is intended to assist reviewers in conducting the review process through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS).

  1. BEFORE ACCEPTING A REVIEW

Before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers should consider the following:

1.1 Expertise

Does the manuscript fall within your area of expertise?

Reviewers should accept a manuscript only when they have sufficient knowledge and expertise to provide a fair and meaningful assessment.

If the manuscript does not sufficiently match your expertise, please decline the invitation and, where possible, recommend an alternative qualified reviewer.

1.2 Availability

Can you complete the review within the required timeframe?

IJOLARES generally expects reviewers to complete their reviews within two weeks of accepting the invitation.

If you are unable to complete the review within this period, please inform the editor as soon as possible.

1.3 Conflict of Interest

Do you have any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest?

Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest before reviewing a manuscript.

A conflict may arise from:

  • Personal relationships with the authors;
  • Current or recent collaboration;
  • Institutional relationships;
  • Professional competition;
  • Financial interests;
  • Academic disputes; or
  • Other circumstances that may affect impartiality.

If a conflict of interest prevents an objective assessment, reviewers should decline the review.

These requirements are consistent with the journal's Publication Ethics policy, which requires reviewers to disclose competing interests and permits them to decline reviews because of conflicts of interest or inadequate expertise.

  1. CONFIDENTIALITY

All manuscripts submitted to IJOLARES are confidential.

Reviewers must:

  • Keep the manuscript and review materials confidential;
  • Not disclose the identity of the authors;
  • Not share the manuscript with third parties without permission from the editor;
  • Not discuss the manuscript with the authors or other persons;
  • Not use unpublished information obtained during the review for personal or professional benefit;
  • Not copy or distribute substantial portions of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript.

If a reviewer wishes to discuss a manuscript with another expert, permission must first be obtained from the editor.

  1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF REVIEW

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to the following principles:

Objectivity

The manuscript should be evaluated based on its academic and legal quality, not on the author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political position, or personal characteristics.

Fairness

The review should be balanced and should identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

Constructiveness

Comments should provide practical suggestions that can help authors improve the manuscript.

Professionalism

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism, offensive language, sarcasm, or statements unrelated to the academic quality of the manuscript.

Evidence-Based Evaluation

Substantive criticism should be supported by clear academic reasoning and, where appropriate, relevant scholarly or legal references.

  1. MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION CRITERIA

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript using the following criteria.

4.1 Relevance to the Journal's Scope

Determine whether the manuscript is consistent with the aims and scope of IJOLARES.

Consider:

  • Is the topic relevant to legal scholarship?
  • Does the manuscript address a meaningful legal issue?
  • Is the manuscript appropriate for the readership of IJOLARES?

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope should be reported to the editor.

4.2 Originality and Novelty

Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript provides a sufficiently original contribution.

Consider:

  • Is the research question sufficiently original?
  • Does the manuscript address a research gap?
  • Does it provide a new legal argument, interpretation, perspective, evidence, or application?
  • Does it contribute meaningfully to existing legal scholarship?
  • Does it extend, challenge, or refine previous research?

Reviewers should inform the editor if substantially similar research has already been published and provide the relevant references where possible.

4.3 Research Problem and Objectives

Assess whether:

  • The research problem is clearly identified;
  • The research problem is significant;
  • The research objectives are clearly stated;
  • The research questions are appropriate;
  • The objectives are addressed in the analysis and conclusion.

The conclusion should answer the objectives or research questions presented in the introduction.

  1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH GAP

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript:

  • Uses relevant scholarly literature;
  • Engages with previous research;
  • Identifies limitations or gaps in existing scholarship;
  • Clearly explains how the manuscript addresses the identified gap;
  • Uses appropriate and authoritative legal sources;
  • Avoids unnecessary or excessive citations;
  • References should support the argument rather than simply demonstrate the number of sources used.

Reviewers may recommend relevant literature when it is genuinely necessary for strengthening the manuscript. Reviewers should not require authors to cite their own publications unless those publications are directly relevant.

  1. TITLE AND ABSTRACT

Title

Assess whether the title:

  • Clearly reflects the subject of the research;
  • Is concise and informative;
  • Corresponds to the content of the manuscript;
  • Avoids unnecessary terminology or claims.

Abstract

Assess whether the abstract:

  • Accurately represents the manuscript;
  • Clearly identifies the research problem or context;
  • States the objective;
  • Briefly describes the method;
  • Presents the principal findings
  • States the main conclusion or contribution.

The abstract should not contain information that is inconsistent with the main manuscript.

  1. INTRODUCTION

Reviewers should determine whether the introduction:

  • Provides an adequate background to the research problem;
  • Clearly identifies the legal problem;
  • Establishes the significance of the research;
  • Reviews relevant previous research;
  • Identifies the research gap;
  • Explains the novelty or contribution;
  • Clearly states the research objective at the appropriate point.

The introduction should establish why the research is necessary rather than merely providing a general description of the topic.

  1. METHODOLOGY

The methodology should be appropriate for the research question and sufficiently explained.

Reviewers should assess:

  • Appropriateness of the research design;
  • Clarity of the research approach;
  • Adequacy of data or legal materials;
  • Data collection procedures where applicable;
  • Data analysis or legal analysis procedures;
  • Consistency between methodology and research objectives;
  • Ethical considerations where applicable;
  • For Normative/Doctrinal Legal Research

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript appropriately explains and applies relevant approaches, such as:

  • Statutory approach;
  • Conceptual approach;
  • Case approach;
  • Comparative approach;
  • Historical approach; and/or
  • Philosophical approach.

The legal materials should be relevant, authoritative, and appropriately analyzed.

For Empirical or Socio-Legal Research

Reviewers should assess, where applicable:

  • Research design;
  • Population and sample;
  • Sampling technique;
  • Data collection;
  • Research instruments;
  • Data analysis;
  • Validity and reliability; and
  • Research ethics.
  1. RESULTS

The results should be presented clearly and logically.

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • The findings are clearly presented;
  • The findings correspond to the research questions;
  • Data or evidence are adequately presented where applicable;
  • The analysis is appropriate;
  • Tables and figures accurately represent the findings.
  • Statistical analyses are appropriate where quantitative methods are used.

 

Reviewers should notify the editor if they are not sufficiently qualified to assess specialized statistical analysis.

  1. DISCUSSION

The discussion is one of the most important parts of the manuscript.

Reviewers should determine whether the discussion:

  • Provides critical interpretation of the findings;
  • Addresses the research questions;
  • Connects findings with previous research;
  • Explains similarities and differences with previous studies;
  • Develops a clear legal argument;
  • Provides sufficient theoretical or conceptual interpretation where relevant;
  • Explains the implications of the findings;
  • Demonstrates the manuscript's novelty and contribution;
  • The discussion should not merely repeat the results.

For legal research, reviewers should pay particular attention to whether the manuscript demonstrates critical legal reasoning and analysis rather than merely describing legislation, regulations, or legal events.

  1. CONCLUSION

Reviewers should assess whether the conclusion:

  • Directly answers the research objectives or questions;
  • Is supported by the findings and analysis;
  • Does not introduce major new arguments;
  • Clearly explains the contribution of the research;
  • Provides legal or policy implications where appropriate;
  • Provides recommendations only when supported by the research.

The conclusion should not simply repeat the introduction or summarize the manuscript without demonstrating its contribution.

  1. TABLES, FIGURES, AND IMAGES

Reviewers should assess whether tables, figures, diagrams, and images:

  • Are relevant to the research;
  • Are necessary and appropriately used;
  • Are clearly presented;
  • Are correctly numbered;
  • Are referred to in the manuscript;
  • Are adequately explained;
  • Contain accurate information.

Include appropriate source information where necessary.

  1. REFERENCES

Reviewers should evaluate the relevance and quality of the references.

Consider:

  • Are the references relevant to the research?
  • Are authoritative legal sources adequately represented?
  • Is relevant recent scholarship included?
  • Are important studies missing?
  • Are citations appropriately connected to claims?
  • Are references used critically?
  • Is excessive self-citation present?
  • Is there evidence of citation manipulation?

IJOLARES requires the use of APA style for references. Reviewers should identify significant citation or referencing problems where they affect the academic quality of the manuscript.

  1. LANGUAGE AND ORGANIZATION

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript is sufficiently clear and logically organized.

Particular attention should be given to:

  • Logical flow of arguments;
  • Consistency of terminology;
  • Clarity of legal arguments;
  • Coherence between sections;
  • Grammar and academic language;
  • Unnecessary repetition;
  • Formatting inconsistencies.

Minor language problems should not automatically result in rejection if the substantive quality of the manuscript is adequate.

  1. PLAGIARISM AND RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Reviewers should remain alert to possible:

  • Plagiarism;
  • Self-plagiarism;
  • Duplicate publication;
  • Redundant publication;
  • Fabrication;
  • Falsification;
  • Data manipulation;
  • Citation manipulation;
  • Authorship misconduct; or
  • Other publication misconduct.

If plagiarism or suspected misconduct is identified, reviewers should not contact the authors directly.

Instead, reviewers should confidentially notify the editor and provide supporting information, such as the title, author, DOI, or other details of the potentially overlapping publication.

The editorial team will investigate the matter in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy. IJOLARES explicitly assigns reviewers the responsibility of reporting suspected ethical misconduct and remaining alert to plagiarism and redundant publication.

  1. USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BY REVIEWERS

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts.

Reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential review materials to external artificial intelligence systems or other third-party platforms where the information may be stored, reused, or disclosed.

AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent academic judgment.

The reviewer remains responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of the review report.

  1. WRITING THE REVIEW REPORT

Reviewers should provide comments that are clear, specific, respectful, and actionable.

The review should preferably contain the following components:

  1. General Comments

Provide a brief overall assessment of the manuscript.

Example:

The manuscript addresses a relevant legal issue and has potential scholarly value. However, substantial improvements are required in the formulation of the research gap, methodological explanation, and depth of legal analysis before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

  1. Major Comments

Identify issues that substantially affect the quality of the manuscript, such as:

  • Research problem;
  • Originality;
  • Research gap;
  • Methodology;
  • Legal analysis;
  • Results;
  • Discussion;
  • Theoretical framework;
  • Evidence;
  •  
  1. Minor Comments

Identify issues that can be corrected without substantially changing the research, including:

  • Typographical errors;
  • Minor language problems;
  • Citation inconsistencies;
  • Formatting;
  • Terminology;
  • Minor organizational issues.
  1. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Where appropriate, reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor regarding:

  • Serious ethical concerns;
  • Potential plagiarism;
  • Conflict of interest;
  • Major methodological concerns;
  • Concerns regarding data integrity;
  • Other matters that should not be communicated directly to the authors.
  1. REVIEWER RECOMMENDATION

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision or requires only minor editorial corrections.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires limited revisions.

Major Revision

The manuscript has potential for publication but requires substantial revision in one or more major areas, such as methodology, legal analysis, research gap, results, discussion, or conclusion.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript requires substantial redevelopment before it can be considered for publication.

Reject

The manuscript has fundamental problems that prevent publication, including insufficient originality, serious methodological weaknesses, inadequate legal analysis, major ethical concerns, or lack of relevance to the journal's scope.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and editorial team.

  1. REVIEWER ETHICS

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to:

  • Maintain confidentiality;
  • Declare conflicts of interest;
  • Review manuscripts objectively and fairly;
  • Provide respectful and constructive comments;
  • Protect the intellectual property of authors;
  • Report suspected plagiarism or research misconduct;
  • Avoid using unpublished information for personal advantage;
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe;
  • Not contact authors directly.

Follow the ethical principles of the journal and internationally recognized publication ethics.

  1. REVIEWER RECOGNITION

IJOLARES appreciates the contribution of reviewers to maintaining the quality and integrity of published research.

The journal may provide recognition for reviewers who complete their assignments satisfactorily, including an electronic reviewer certificate or other forms of recognition determined by the editorial office.

Any public acknowledgment of reviewers should be conducted with the reviewer's consent and must not compromise the confidentiality of the double-blind peer-review process.

  1. FINAL NOTE TO REVIEWERS

The role of a reviewer is not simply to identify weaknesses in a manuscript. A high-quality review should help authors strengthen their research, improve their legal reasoning, clarify their contribution, and enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.

IJOLARES sincerely appreciates reviewers who provide careful, timely, independent, ethical, and constructive evaluations.

Thank you for contributing your expertise to the advancement of legal scholarship through the Indonesian Journal of Law Research (IJOLARES).