Peer Review Process
In order to ensure an objective, thorough, and unbiased publication, the manuscript submission process in the Jurisprudence Journal follows several stages as follows:

 

1. Manuscript Submission: After the author submits the manuscript to the Jurisprudence Journal, the Editor in Chief will assess whether the title aligns with the scope and focus of the journal. Manuscripts that do not meet the scope and focus will be rejected. Manuscripts that are suitable will be forwarded to the managing editor team.

2. Template Usage Check: The Managing Editor checks the manuscript against the journal's template standards. Authors are required to use the template available on OJS as the basis for their paper. Manuscripts that do not use the template will be rejected or returned for adjustment. One of the most emphasized aspects is the minimum and maximum word count in the manuscript.

3. Plagiarism Check: The Managing Editor conducts a plagiarism check using Turnitin on the initial manuscript submitted by the author. A similarity index above 26% will result in rejection, while a similarity index below 25% will be forwarded to the ‘Editorial Team’ meeting for further handling.

4. Manuscript Selection (Before Review): The Managing Editor and the editorial team conduct an assessment meeting regarding the theme and potential of the manuscript. At this stage, novelty is prioritized to determine whether the manuscript will proceed to the next stage. Based on this and other supporting aspects, the team can decide to accept the manuscript, reject it, or send it for review.

5. Manuscript Review Process: The Managing Editor requests at least two experts in the field to review the manuscript. The peer review process is conducted as a double-blind review, meaning the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other. Reviewers are provided with review forms prepared by the Jurisprudence Journal. The manuscript review is divided into two categories: review of the writing methodology and review of the substance.

6. Request for Revisions Based on Reviewer Comments: After the reviewers provide their feedback on the manuscript, the editorial team forwards the comments to the author for revision within a specific timeframe. The revision period is usually between 1 week and 1 month, depending on the extent of revisions requested by the reviewers. The author is expected to make revisions as per the comments. However, if the author believes there is a mistake by the reviewer, they may explain it in the OJS journal's comment section to defend their statement.

7. Submission of Revised Manuscript: After revising the manuscript according to the reviewer’s instructions, the author resubmits it through the previous submission process (not as a new submission). The manuscript will be assessed on the extent of the revisions made. If the revisions are insufficient, further revisions may be requested. Revisions may occur multiple times as long as the manuscript's quality improves. The manuscript may also be rejected at this stage if the revision quality deteriorates or the author fails to revise it.

8. Acceptance Notification: If the review team is satisfied with the revisions made, the editorial team will notify the author that their manuscript has been accepted for publication.

9. Copyediting Process: The accepted manuscript will undergo copyediting according to the standards and layout mechanisms of the Jurisprudence Journal. At this stage, the editorial team may contact the author if any technical data is missing. A final plagiarism check will also be conducted before publication.

10. Publication Process: Once the manuscript has completed the editing stage, including translation and Turnitin checks, it will be published. The author will be notified that their manuscript has been published in the Jurisprudence Journal.