Editorial Process

 
EDITORIAL WORKFLOW

Editorial Process

TITAH: Journal of Law

TITAH: Journal of Law applies a structured, transparent, academically rigorous, and ethically responsible editorial process to ensure that every published article meets appropriate standards of legal scholarship, originality, methodological quality, research integrity, and publication ethics.

Editorial Commitment
All manuscripts submitted to TITAH: Journal of Law are managed through the journal's online editorial system. Manuscripts are assessed progressively through administrative screening, editorial evaluation, scholarly peer review, revision, final editorial decision, production, and publication. Editorial decisions are based exclusively on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal, integrity of the research, quality of legal analysis, and compliance with the journal's policies.
Core Editorial Principles
Double-Blind Review
Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other during the peer-review process.
Scholarly Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently on the basis of academic quality and relevance.
Research Integrity
Manuscripts are examined for originality, ethical compliance, authorship, and publication integrity.
Editorial Accountability
The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the responsible editor.
MANUSCRIPT JOURNEY

Editorial Process at a Glance

1
Submission		 → 2
Initial Check		 → 3
Editorial Review		 → 4
Peer Review
↓
8
Publication		 ← 7
Production		 ← 6
Final Decision		 ← 5
Revision
STEP 01   Manuscript Submission
Authors submit manuscripts through the online journal system and are responsible for ensuring that all required metadata and manuscript files are complete and accurate.
The submission should include accurate author information, institutional affiliations, corresponding-author details, manuscript type, title, abstract, keywords, main manuscript, references, tables and figures where applicable, funding information, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and the required statement concerning the use of Artificial Intelligence.
STEP 02   Administrative and Technical Screening
The Editorial Office conducts an initial examination to determine whether the submission satisfies the journal's basic technical and administrative requirements.
✓ Completeness of manuscript components ✓ Compliance with the TITAH template
✓ Author and affiliation metadata ✓ Abstract and keyword requirements
✓ Tables, figures, and supporting materials ✓ Reference and citation completeness

Submissions that are incomplete may be returned to the author for correction before further evaluation.

STEP 03   Editorial Pre-Review
The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor evaluates the manuscript before external peer review. This stage determines whether the manuscript is sufficiently relevant and academically suitable to enter the formal review process.
Editorial assessment includes:
relevance to the journal's aims and scope; originality and novelty; significance of the legal problem; clarity of the research question; suitability of the methodology; quality of legal reasoning; currency and authority of sources; manuscript structure; academic language; and potential contribution to legal scholarship or practice.
Possible Desk Rejection
A manuscript may be declined before external peer review when it is clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution or novelty, contains serious methodological or ethical concerns, does not follow the journal's requirements, or is not of sufficient quality to proceed to peer review.
STEP 04   Research Integrity and Similarity Screening
Manuscripts may be examined for similarity and indications of publication misconduct. The editorial assessment considers the manuscript as a whole and does not rely solely on a numerical similarity percentage.

The Editorial Team may investigate suspected plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate authorship, fabricated or falsified information, citation manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, or other breaches of scholarly integrity.

Serious ethical concerns may result in rejection and may be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and applicable COPE principles.
STEP 05   Assignment of Handling Editor
A manuscript that passes the preliminary evaluation is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, Associate Editor, or another authorized Handling Editor whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript.

The Handling Editor oversees the review process, identifies appropriate reviewers, evaluates reviewer recommendations, communicates editorial decisions, and ensures that the manuscript is processed consistently with the journal's policies.

STEP 06   Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts considered suitable for external evaluation are normally sent to at least two qualified peer reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.

TITAH: Journal of Law applies a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

Reviewer Expertise
Reviewers should possess appropriate expertise and a relevant scholarly publication record.		 Independence
Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline assignments where impartiality could be compromised.
Substantive Assessment
Reviews should address the substance of the manuscript rather than merely language or formatting.		 Confidentiality
Manuscripts and review materials must be treated as confidential documents.
Principal Peer-Review Criteria
✓ Relevance to the journal's scope ✓ Originality and scholarly contribution
✓ Importance of the legal problem ✓ Appropriateness of research methods
✓ Accuracy of legal analysis ✓ Use of authoritative legal materials
✓ Quality of argumentation ✓ Engagement with relevant scholarship
✓ Consistency between findings and conclusion ✓ Ethical and research-integrity compliance
AI AND PEER REVIEW
Artificial Intelligence must not replace peer-review judgment.
Peer reviewers must not use generative AI or AI-assisted systems to analyze, evaluate, prepare reviewer comments on, or make recommendations concerning a confidential manuscript. Reviewers must not upload the manuscript, extracts from it, unpublished data, or confidential review materials to generative AI platforms.
Scientific judgment, legal evaluation, confidentiality, and responsibility for peer-review comments must remain with the appointed human reviewer.
STEP 07   Editorial Evaluation of Reviewer Reports
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Handling Editor evaluates the quality, consistency, relevance, and substance of the reviewer reports before reaching an editorial decision.

Where reviewer recommendations conflict substantially, the Editor may independently evaluate the manuscript further or seek an additional expert opinion.

The final editorial decision is made by the responsible Editor and is not determined automatically by reviewer voting.
Possible Editorial Decisions
Accept
The manuscript is academically suitable for publication, subject to production-stage requirements.		 Minor Revision
Limited revision is required and may normally be evaluated by the Handling Editor.		 Major Revision
Substantial revision is required and the revised manuscript may be returned to reviewers.		 Reject / Decline
The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.
STEP 08   Author Revision
Authors receiving a revision decision must carefully address the Editor's and reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response explaining the changes made.

For minor revision, the revised manuscript may be evaluated by the Handling Editor. For major revision, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers for additional assessment.

More than one revision round may be required when necessary to ensure the academic quality and integrity of the manuscript.

STEP 09   Final Editorial Decision
After considering the manuscript, revised version, author responses, peer-review reports, and any additional editorial assessment, the responsible Editor makes the final decision.
Acceptance is granted only when the Editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal's standards of scholarly quality, legal analysis, research integrity, methodological rigor, and publication ethics.
STEP 10   Copyediting and Production
Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage. Editorial acceptance does not mean that the accepted manuscript is published immediately.
Copyediting Language editing Reference verification
Metadata verification Layout and typesetting Galley preparation
Author proofreading DOI preparation Issue scheduling
Author Proofreading
Authors may be requested to examine the final proof for typographical, formatting, metadata, or production errors. Proofreading is not an opportunity to introduce substantial new arguments, data, authors, or major changes to the accepted manuscript unless expressly approved by the Editor.
STEP 11   Publication
Following completion of production checks and editorial approval, the final article is published in the designated issue of TITAH: Journal of Law.

The published article includes complete bibliographic metadata and, where applicable, an active Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Article history information is recorded using the following stages:

Received Revised Accepted Published

The dates displayed in the published article should reflect the actual documented editorial history of the manuscript.

Responsibilities in the Editorial Process

Participant Primary Responsibility
Author Originality, accuracy, authorship, ethical compliance, revision, and final responsibility for the manuscript.
Editorial Office Administrative screening, workflow management, documentation, and production coordination.
Handling Editor Scholarly assessment, reviewer selection, evaluation of reports, revision assessment, and editorial decision.
Peer Reviewer Independent, confidential, objective, substantive, and constructive scholarly assessment.
Conflict of Interest and Editorial Independence
Editors and reviewers must disclose circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as affecting their impartiality. An editor with a significant competing interest concerning a manuscript should not participate in its editorial decision and the manuscript should be reassigned to another qualified editor.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Team are subject to the same academic, ethical, and peer-review requirements as other submissions and must be handled independently.

Confidentiality
Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, research data, and other confidential submission materials must not be disclosed or used for personal advantage. Access is limited to individuals legitimately involved in the editorial and publication process.
Special and Thematic Issues
Manuscripts submitted for a Special Issue or Thematic Issue are subject to the same editorial standards, research-integrity requirements, and independent peer-review requirements as manuscripts submitted to regular issues. Participation in a conference, invited collection, or thematic initiative does not replace scholarly peer review.
Post-Publication Editorial Responsibility
Editorial responsibility continues after publication. When credible concerns regarding a published article are raised, the journal may investigate the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with its publication-ethics policies.

Depending on the circumstances, actions may include clarification, correction, corrigendum, erratum, expression of concern, or retraction. Post-publication actions should preserve the integrity and transparency of the scholarly record.

!
Important Editorial Notice
Reviewer recommendations do not constitute automatic acceptance or rejection. The Editor evaluates the complete scholarly record of the manuscript and retains responsibility for the final editorial decision.
TITAH: Journal of Law
Editorial Process · Double-Blind Peer Review · Research Integrity · Independent Editorial Decision