ABOUT THE JOURNAL
EDITORIAL & REVIEW
PUBLICATION POLICIES
FOR AUTHORS
Publication Process
Juris Sinergi Journal (JSJ)
Process at a glance: Submission → Administrative Screening → Preliminary Editorial Assessment → Reviewer Appointment → Double-Blind Peer Review → Initial Decision → Author Revision → Reassessment → Final Decision → Copyediting → Proof Approval → Online Publication.
1. General Provisions
Juris Sinergi Journal (hereinafter referred to as the “Journal”) shall administer the submission, editorial assessment, peer review, revision, acceptance, and publication of scholarly manuscripts in accordance with the principles of academic integrity, editorial independence, procedural fairness, confidentiality, and transparency.
All manuscripts shall be assessed on their scholarly merits, including their originality, contribution to legal scholarship, doctrinal or empirical rigor, analytical coherence, and appropriate use of relevant legal authorities. The Journal shall operate a double-blind peer-review procedure for research articles, under which the identities of authors and reviewers shall not be disclosed to one another during the review process.
The Journal adopts a maximum ordinary publication-processing period of six (6) calendar months, calculated from the date on which a manuscript is formally recorded as complete and eligible for editorial assessment until its online publication, where the manuscript is ultimately accepted and the author complies with the prescribed revision and proofing deadlines. The stage-specific time limits below constitute an internal operational allocation of 180 calendar days within that six-month ceiling. The six-month period is a policy adopted by the Journal and is not a time limit imposed by COPE or DOAJ.
2. Submission and Acknowledgment
Authors shall submit manuscripts exclusively through the Journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Each submission must conform to the Journal's Author Guidelines and shall not be under simultaneous consideration elsewhere. The corresponding author shall be responsible for the accuracy of the submitted metadata, authorship declarations, and any disclosures required under the Journal's publication-ethics policies.
Commencement of the processing period: the date on which the Editorial Office confirms that the submission is complete.
3. Administrative Compliance Review — Maximum 7 Calendar Days
The Editorial Office shall examine whether the submitted manuscript complies with the prescribed format, anonymization requirements, completeness of author declarations, citation conventions, references, and accompanying documents. A submission that is materially incomplete may be returned for administrative correction before substantive assessment commences.
4. Preliminary Editorial and Research-Integrity Assessment — Maximum 14 Calendar Days
The responsible Editor shall determine whether the manuscript falls within the Journal's aims and scope and satisfies the threshold requirements of scholarly quality. For legal research, this assessment shall include, as appropriate, the identification of a legally significant research question, the suitability of the research methodology, the accuracy and currency of statutory or regulatory references, the treatment of judicial decisions, and the soundness of legal reasoning.
The Journal may undertake similarity screening and assess potential plagiarism, redundant publication, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence. A similarity score shall not, by itself, constitute conclusive evidence of misconduct. The Editor may issue a reasoned desk-rejection decision where the manuscript does not satisfy the preliminary requirements.
5. Appointment of Independent Reviewers — Maximum 14 Calendar Days
Manuscripts admitted to peer review shall ordinarily be referred to at least two (2) independent reviewers possessing expertise relevant to the manuscript's legal subject matter, methodology, or jurisdiction. Reviewers shall disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and shall maintain the confidentiality of all materials entrusted to them.
6. Double-Blind Peer Review — Maximum 42 Calendar Days
Reviewers shall evaluate the manuscript's originality, significance, methodology, quality of legal interpretation, use of primary and secondary legal sources, coherence of argument, and contribution to the development of legal science and practice. Their reports shall provide substantiated comments and may recommend: (a) acceptance; (b) minor revision; (c) major revision; or (d) rejection.
Reviewer recommendations shall be advisory and shall not displace the Editor's independent authority to determine the manuscript's disposition.
7. Initial Editorial Determination — Maximum 7 Calendar Days
Upon receipt of the review reports, the Editor shall evaluate the recommendations, identify matters requiring clarification or revision, and communicate a reasoned initial decision through OJS. Where the reviews materially conflict or do not provide a sufficient basis for determination, the Editor may obtain an additional independent assessment within the Journal's overall processing timetable.
8. Author's Revision and Response — Maximum 30 Calendar Days
Where revision is required, the author shall submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response addressing the reviewers' and Editor's observations. Any recommendation not adopted shall be accompanied by an adequately reasoned academic explanation. Failure to submit the revision within the stipulated period, without prior written authorization, may result in administrative closure or rejection of the submission.
9. Reassessment or Further Peer Review — Maximum 28 Calendar Days
The Editor shall assess whether the revised manuscript satisfactorily addresses the material concerns raised during review. Where necessary, the manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or submitted to another suitably qualified independent reviewer. A further revision may be requested only where academically justified and consistent with the overall processing period.
10. Final Editorial Decision — Maximum 7 Calendar Days
The Editor-in-Chief or duly authorized handling Editor shall issue the final decision, namely acceptance or rejection, on the basis of the manuscript's scholarly merits and the review record. Acceptance shall not be guaranteed by the completion of peer review, the payment of any applicable fee, or the expiration of any stated processing period. Editorial decisions shall remain independent of commercial considerations.
11. Copyediting and Substantive Verification — Maximum 14 Calendar Days
An accepted manuscript shall undergo copyediting to ensure clarity, linguistic consistency, bibliographic accuracy, conformity with the Journal's style, and appropriate presentation of legal citations and authorities. Any proposed editorial alteration affecting the substance of the legal argument shall be referred to the author for confirmation.
12. Typesetting and Author Proof Approval — Maximum 10 Calendar Days
The Journal shall prepare the final publication files and transmit the proof to the corresponding author for verification of authorship particulars, article metadata, quotations, citations, tables, and formatting. Proof-stage changes shall ordinarily be restricted to necessary corrections and shall not be used to introduce material amendments to the accepted research.
13. Online Publication — Maximum 7 Calendar Days
Following approval of the final proof, the Journal shall publish the article online, either through an online-first mechanism or in the applicable issue, in accordance with its stated publishing schedule. The published record shall identify the date of publication and, where applicable, the submission and acceptance dates, licensing information, and Digital Object Identifier (DOI).
14. Schedule of Maximum Processing Periods
| No. | Editorial Stage | Maximum Period | Cumulative Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Administrative Compliance Review | 7 days | 7 days |
| 2 | Preliminary Editorial and Integrity Assessment | 14 days | 21 days |
| 3 | Appointment of Independent Reviewers | 14 days | 35 days |
| 4 | Double-Blind Peer Review | 42 days | 77 days |
| 5 | Initial Editorial Determination | 7 days | 84 days |
| 6 | Author's Revision and Response | 30 days | 114 days |
| 7 | Reassessment or Further Peer Review | 28 days | 142 days |
| 8 | Final Editorial Decision | 7 days | 149 days |
| 9 | Copyediting and Substantive Verification | 14 days | 163 days |
| 10 | Typesetting and Author Proof Approval | 10 days | 173 days |
| 11 | Online Publication | 7 days | 180 days |
| Total Internal Operational Allocation | 180 calendar days (within a maximum of six calendar months) | ||
Note: The above allocations describe the ordinary route for an accepted article requiring one substantive revision cycle. Desk-rejected or rejected manuscripts do not proceed through the remaining stages. The Journal may complete any stage sooner, and compatible stages may overlap, provided that peer-review integrity is preserved.
15. Delays, Exceptional Circumstances, and Author's Rights
The Journal shall endeavor to complete the ordinary publication process within the prescribed maximum of six (6) calendar months. If an exceptional circumstance, including the need for a further independent review or an investigation into suspected misconduct, renders that period impracticable, the Editor shall notify the corresponding author promptly, state the reason for the delay, and provide an updated timetable. No extension beyond six (6) calendar months shall be treated as automatic; any proposed extension shall be subject to the author's express written agreement. The author may instead elect to withdraw the manuscript in accordance with the Journal's withdrawal policy.
Nothing in this policy shall be construed as requiring the Editor to accept a manuscript, curtail a necessary integrity inquiry, or compromise the independence and rigor of scholarly peer review merely to meet an administrative deadline.
16. Ethical Safeguards and Procedural Accountability
Editors and reviewers shall discharge their functions impartially and shall protect confidential submission materials. Complaints, appeals, and allegations of research or publication misconduct shall be handled under the Journal's applicable ethical policies and with due regard to recognized publication-ethics guidance. The Journal shall retain an auditable record of editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, revision submissions, and editorial decisions within OJS, subject to its lawful retention and privacy policies.
