Jurnal Pranata Hukum is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, and academic integrity of published articles. All submitted manuscripts undergo an editorial screening and peer review process to evaluate their suitability, scholarly contribution, research quality, and relevance to the field of law. The review process is intended to ensure that published manuscripts meet the journal's academic standards and publication ethics.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team examines the manuscript to determine whether it falls within the focus and scope of Jurnal Pranata Hukum and complies with the journal's author guidelines. The initial screening includes an assessment of manuscript completeness, originality, writing quality, structure, and compliance with publication requirements. The editor may return a manuscript to the author for correction or reject it before peer review if it does not meet the journal's basic requirements.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers assess the manuscript independently and provide constructive comments to help improve its academic quality. The editorial team should consider the reviewers' qualifications, subject expertise, and any potential conflicts of interest when making assignments.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on its academic quality, relevance, and contribution to legal scholarship. The assessment may include the following aspects:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
• Originality and significance of the research or legal analysis.
• Clarity of the research problems, objectives, and arguments.
• Appropriateness of the research method and analytical approach.
• Quality of legal reasoning, discussion, and interpretation.
• Accuracy and adequacy of legal sources, citations, and references.
• Consistency between the research objectives, discussion, and conclusions.
• Clarity of presentation, structure, and academic language.

4. Reviewer's Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers provide comments, suggestions, and a recommendation to the editor. The possible recommendations are:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to any necessary editorial adjustments.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements before it can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or is unsuitable for publication.

Reviewers provide recommendations, while the final decision regarding publication is made by the editor or editor-in-chief after considering the review reports and the overall quality of the manuscript.

5. Manuscript Revision

Authors whose manuscripts require revision must address the reviewers' comments and the editor's instructions carefully. Authors should revise the manuscript and provide a clear response explaining how the comments have been addressed. If a comment is not adopted, the authors should provide an academic justification. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation to determine whether the required improvements have been adequately implemented.

6. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' reports and the authors' revisions, the editor determines whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised further, or rejected. The decision takes into account the manuscript's scholarly contribution, the quality of its analysis, its relevance to the journal's scope, and its compliance with publication standards. A positive recommendation from a reviewer does not automatically guarantee acceptance, as the final decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

7. Copyediting and Publication

Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed to the editorial preparation stage. This stage may include copyediting, language correction, reference checking, layout preparation, and proofreading. Authors may be asked to review the final proofs to verify the accuracy of the text and publication details. The manuscript is published after the required editorial procedures have been completed.

8. Confidentiality and Publication Ethics

The editorial team and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and materials obtained during the review process. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, fair, and constructive assessments, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and refrain from using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage. Authors are responsible for the originality and integrity of their submissions, the accuracy of the information presented, and the proper acknowledgment of all sources. Any concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other potential breaches of publication ethics should be handled in accordance with the journal's applicable policies.