Peer Review Process

SCHOLARLY QUALITY ASSURANCE

Peer Review Process

TITAH: Journal of Law

TITAH: Journal of Law applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to evaluate the originality, scholarly contribution, methodological quality, legal reasoning, research integrity, and overall suitability of manuscripts submitted for publication.

Peer Review Policy

Manuscripts that successfully pass preliminary editorial screening are normally evaluated by a minimum of three independent and qualified Peer Reviewers/Mitra Bestari whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewer reports are advisory. The final decision concerning acceptance, revision, or rejection remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized Handling Editor.

REVIEW MODEL

Double-Blind

Author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other.

REVIEWERS

Minimum 3

Qualified reviewers are assigned according to manuscript expertise.

REVIEW PERIOD

14–21 Days

Reviewers are normally requested to complete their assessment within this period.

FINAL DECISION

Editor

Reviewer recommendations do not automatically determine the decision.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is intended to support the publication of reliable, original, analytically rigorous, and academically significant legal scholarship.

Reviewers assess the substantive quality of the manuscript and provide constructive recommendations to assist both the Editor and the authors in improving the quality, clarity, accuracy, and contribution of the work.

Peer review is not intended merely to correct grammar, formatting, or layout. Reviewer comments should engage substantively with the legal problem, research design, authorities, analysis, findings, argument, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

PEER REVIEW WORKFLOW

Review Process at a Glance

Editorial Screening	→	Reviewer Selection	→	Double-Blind Review	→	Reviewer Reports
↓
Final Decision	←	Revision Assessment	←	Author Revision	←	Editorial Decision

STEP 01 Preliminary Editorial Screening

Before external peer review, the Editorial Team evaluates whether the manuscript is appropriate for further scholarly assessment.

✓ Relevance to the aims and scope of TITAH: Journal of Law

✓ Compliance with the manuscript template and Author Guidelines

✓ Originality, novelty, and significance of the legal problem

✓ Adequacy of methodology and legal research design

✓ Quality and currency of legal and scholarly sources

✓ Research and publication integrity

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the minimum editorial requirements may be returned for correction or declined without external peer review.

STEP 02 Similarity and Integrity Screening

Manuscripts may be screened using similarity-detection tools before or during editorial assessment.

The journal does not evaluate originality solely on the basis of a numerical similarity percentage. The Editor examines the source, context, extent, and nature of similarities to determine whether they indicate legitimate quotation, commonly used legal language, improper attribution, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or another integrity concern.

Serious indications of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or other misconduct may result in rejection or further investigation.

STEP 03 Selection of Peer Reviewers

The Handling Editor selects reviewers on the basis of their expertise, scholarly record, independence, and relevance to the manuscript topic.

Reviewer selection is not based solely on academic title or institutional position. The journal considers demonstrable scholarly competence and an appropriate publication record in the relevant field.

REVIEWER QUALIFICATIONS

Criteria for Peer Reviewers

Relevant Expertise Demonstrated expertise consistent with the subject matter and scope of the manuscript.	Publication Record An appropriate scholarly publication record, particularly publications relevant to the journal's field during recent years.
Institutional Diversity Reviewer selection should support diversity across institutions and, where appropriate, countries.	Independence Reviewers must be capable of evaluating manuscripts independently and free from inappropriate influence.
No Conflict of Interest Reviewers must disclose circumstances that could compromise, or appear to compromise, impartiality.	Verifiable Identity Reviewer name, affiliation, expertise, and scholarly record must be genuine and reasonably verifiable.

Conflict-of-Interest Screening
Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should consider whether they have a personal, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, competitive, or financial relationship that could affect their impartiality.

Reviewers who cannot provide a fair and independent assessment should decline the invitation and, where appropriate, inform the Editor.

STEP 04 Double-Blind Peer Review

TITAH: Journal of Law uses a double-blind review system. The identity of the authors is not disclosed to reviewers, and the identity of reviewers is not disclosed to authors during the review process.

Authors are expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that does not unnecessarily reveal their identity in the manuscript file. The Editorial Team may remove identifying information where necessary before the manuscript is sent for review.

The blind-review mechanism is intended to reduce inappropriate influence arising from identity, institution, reputation, seniority, gender, nationality, or other irrelevant considerations.

Peer Review Assessment Criteria

Reviewers are expected to provide a substantive assessment addressing the following areas where applicable:

1. Relevance Alignment with the journal's aims, scope, and field of law.	2. Originality & Novelty New legal insight, argument, interpretation, evidence, or contribution.
3. Legal Problem Importance, precision, and clarity of the legal question or proposition.	4. Literature & Authorities Appropriate use of scholarship, legislation, regulations, cases, treaties, and authoritative sources.
5. Research Method Appropriateness, transparency, and consistency of the legal or empirical research design.	6. Legal Analysis Accuracy, depth, coherence, and critical quality of legal reasoning.
7. Results & Discussion Quality of interpretation and engagement with relevant scholarship and jurisprudence.	8. Contribution Significance for legal scholarship, law reform, adjudication, regulation, institutional practice, or public policy.
9. Conclusion Consistency between the research question, analysis, findings, and conclusions.	10. Research Integrity Identification of relevant ethical, attribution, citation, or integrity concerns.

Substantive and Constructive Review

Reviewer reports should contain meaningful scholarly comments and, where necessary, specific recommendations for improvement.

Comments limited only to grammar, typography, layout, or general statements such as “good article” or “publishable” are not considered sufficient substantive peer review.

Reviewers are encouraged to identify strengths and weaknesses clearly, explain the basis of their recommendations, and provide constructive suggestions without personal, discriminatory, insulting, or unprofessional remarks.

STEP 05 Review Period

Reviewers are normally requested to complete a review within 14–21 days after accepting the review assignment.

When a reviewer requires additional time, an extension may be granted at the discretion of the Handling Editor. If a reviewer does not respond to the invitation or cannot complete the review, another qualified reviewer may be appointed to avoid unnecessary delay.

Review quality and scholarly rigor take precedence over an artificially accelerated editorial decision.

IMPORTANT

Artificial Intelligence is Prohibited in Peer Review

Peer Reviewers must not use generative Artificial Intelligence or AI-assisted technologies to:

× analyze or evaluate a submitted manuscript;

× assess its scientific or legal quality;

× generate or formulate reviewer comments;

× make or assist in making review recommendations; or

× upload the manuscript or any portion of confidential manuscript material to an AI application.

Peer-review judgment must remain the responsibility of the appointed human reviewer. This prohibition also protects manuscript confidentiality, unpublished research, legal arguments, data, and intellectual property.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, academic, professional, commercial, or competitive advantage.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been completed.

Citation Ethics

Reviewers may recommend relevant literature when such references are genuinely necessary to strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewer's own work, the journal's articles, or particular authors merely to increase citation counts. Any recommended citation must have a clear scholarly relevance to the manuscript.

STEP 06 Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the substantive assessment, reviewers provide comments and a recommendation to the Editor.

Accept
Suitable for publication without substantive revision.

Minor Revision
Limited modifications are required.

Major Revision
Substantial revision and further review are required.

Reject
The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

Reviewer Recommendations Are Advisory

Peer Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully but do not automatically determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

The Editor evaluates the manuscript together with all reviewer reports, the quality and substance of those reports, applicable journal policies, ethical considerations, and the author's responses before making an editorial decision.

Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

If reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the Handling Editor evaluates the reasons supporting each report.

The Editor may seek clarification, conduct an additional editorial assessment, or appoint an additional qualified reviewer when necessary before making a decision.

STEP 07 Revision and Re-Review

Authors receiving a revision decision must respond carefully to the comments provided and submit a revised manuscript together with an explanation of the changes made.

Minor Revision
The revised manuscript may normally be assessed by the Handling Editor without returning it to the original reviewers, unless further expert assessment is considered necessary.

Major Revision
The revised manuscript is normally returned to the original Peer Reviewers for another review round to determine whether the major scholarly concerns have been adequately addressed.

Additional Review Rounds
A manuscript may undergo more than one round of peer review when necessary. Additional review rounds are determined by the nature of the revisions and whether the manuscript has sufficiently addressed the scholarly issues identified during earlier review.

STEP 08 Final Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or authorized Handling Editor after considering:

✓ the manuscript in its current form;

✓ all Peer Reviewer reports and recommendations;

✓ the quality and substance of reviewer comments;

✓ the author's revisions and responses;

✓ originality and research integrity;

✓ consistency with the journal's aims, scope, and policies; and

✓ the manuscript's overall scholarly contribution.

Acceptance is granted only when the responsible Editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the scholarly and ethical standards of TITAH: Journal of Law.

REVIEW DOCUMENTATION

Documentation of the Peer Review Process

The journal manages peer review through its electronic journal management system. Relevant records should be retained as part of the editorial history of the manuscript, including:

Reviewer assignments and invitations	Acceptance or decline of review invitations	Reviewer reports and substantive comments
Reviewer recommendations	Revised manuscript files and author responses	Editorial decisions and review rounds

Reviewer participation listed by the journal should correspond to genuine review activity and verifiable editorial records.

Reviewer Recognition

The journal may acknowledge Peer Reviewers who have genuinely completed review assignments. Inclusion in the journal's Reviewer list should reflect actual participation in peer review.

The public reviewer list does not identify which reviewer assessed a particular article and therefore does not compromise the double-blind review process.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Reviewers

Manuscripts authored by members of the Editorial Team or Peer Reviewer community are not automatically accepted and are subject to the same scholarly and ethical standards as other submissions.

An editor who is an author or has another significant conflict of interest must not participate in the peer-review management or editorial decision concerning that manuscript. The submission should be handled independently by another qualified editor.

!	Peer Review Integrity The credibility of peer review depends not only on the written policy but also on its consistent implementation. Every published article that requires external peer review must have a genuine, traceable, and substantive review history in the journal management system.

TITAH: Journal of Law
Double-Blind Peer Review · Independent Reviewers · Substantive Evaluation · Editorial Integrity