Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Tata Negara–Hukum Administrasi Negara (JAPHTN-HAN) undergo a rigorous, multi-stage evaluation process designed to ensure scholarly excellence, originality, and adherence to ethical publishing standards. The editorial workflow consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Technical Screening; Upon submission, each manuscript is assigned to the Managing Editor for a preliminary assessment. This includes:

  • Verifying compliance with the journal’s Author Guidelines, including formatting and citation requirements (Chicago Manual of Style).

  • Conducting a plagiarism check using Turnitin to ensure originality and detect potential ethical issues.

  • Assessing the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope and thematic focus in Constitutional Law and Administrative Law.

  • Manuscripts that do not comply with technical or ethical requirements may be returned to authors for revision or declined at this stage.

2. Editorial Evaluation by Section Editor; Submissions that meet the initial technical requirements are reviewed by the Section Editor to determine whether they warrant further evaluation. Manuscripts may be:

  • Forwarded to the peer review stage.

  • Returned to authors with recommendations for revision.

  • Declined if they fall outside the journal’s scope, lack academic rigor, or fail to meet scholarly standards.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review; Manuscripts advancing to the peer review stage undergo a double-blind review by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Key features of this process:

  • Both authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain anonymous to ensure an objective and unbiased evaluation.

  • Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological soundness, scholarly contribution, coherence, and clarity of presentation.

  • Detailed feedback and recommendations are provided to guide editorial decisions and help authors improve their work.

4. Final Editorial Decision; After receiving reviewers’ reports, the Managing Editor, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief and editorial board, makes a final determination. The possible outcomes are:

  • Accepted: Approved for publication as submitted.

  • Accepted with Minor Revisions: Requires minor corrections to be completed within a specified timeframe.

  • Accepted with Major Revisions: Requires substantial revisions in accordance with reviewers’ recommendations prior to publication.

  • Resubmission Required (Conditional Rejection): Requires extensive revisions; may be reconsidered as a new submission.

  • Rejected: Does not meet the journal’s academic and editorial standards; no further consideration.