Reviewer Guidelines

JurisPrism: Innovations in Law Science Journal

1. Purpose of Review

The peer review process aims to ensure the academic quality, originality, and relevance of manuscripts submitted to JurisPrism: Innovations in Law Science Journal. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the integrity and scholarly excellence of published works by providing constructive, objective, and timely evaluations.

2. Reviewer’s Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Assess Objectively – Evaluate manuscripts impartially, without personal bias, and based solely on scholarly merit.

  2. Maintain Confidentiality – Treat the manuscript and review process as strictly confidential; do not share or discuss it with others without editor permission.

  3. Declare Conflicts of Interest – Notify the editor immediately if any potential conflict of interest (financial, institutional, or personal) exists.

  4. Provide Constructive Feedback – Offer clear, reasoned, and evidence-based comments that can help authors improve their work.

  5. Ensure Timeliness – Submit reviews within the specified deadline. If unable to meet the timeline, promptly inform the editorial office.

3. Review Criteria

Each manuscript should be evaluated based on the following aspects:

Criteria Description
Originality and Novelty The manuscript presents new insights or innovative perspectives on law and legal science.
Relevance The study aligns with the focus and scope of JurisPrism: Innovations in Law Science Journal.
Scientific Rigor The research design, methodology, and legal reasoning are sound and appropriate.
Clarity and Organization The writing is coherent, logically structured, and follows academic conventions.
Literature Review The manuscript demonstrates engagement with relevant, recent, and reputable scholarly sources.
Contribution to Legal Scholarship The paper contributes significantly to theory, policy, or practice in the field of law.
Ethical Compliance The work adheres to ethical standards of research and publication (no plagiarism, proper citation).

4. Review Format

Reviewers should provide comments in two parts:

  1. Comments to the Editor – Confidential remarks about the overall evaluation and recommendation (e.g., Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject).

  2. Comments to the Author – Detailed, constructive feedback addressing strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvement.

5. Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers should select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.

  • Minor Revision – The manuscript requires minor improvements before publication.

  • Major Revision – Substantial revisions are needed before it can be reconsidered.

  • Reject – The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in its current form or does not meet the journal’s standards.

6. Ethical Considerations

  • Plagiarism: If plagiarism or unethical practices are suspected, reviewers must report it to the editor immediately.

  • Bias and Confidentiality: Reviewers must avoid bias and must not use unpublished information from manuscripts for personal advantage.

  • Respectful Tone: Criticism should be expressed in a professional and constructive manner.

7. Review Process Flow

  1. Reviewer receives invitation and abstract.

  2. Reviewer confirms availability and absence of conflict of interest.

  3. Full manuscript and review form are provided.

  4. Reviewer completes evaluation and submits the report through the online system.

  5. Editor consolidates reviewer comments and communicates the decision to the author.

8. Acknowledgment

JurisPrism greatly values the contribution of its reviewers. Their expertise and voluntary efforts are fundamental to upholding the quality and credibility of this journal in advancing legal scholarship and innovation.

Contact

Editorial Office – JurisPrism: Innovations in Law Science Journal
Email: [deryeka4@gmail.com]