Peer Review Process

Editorial Policy

Peer Review Process

Ensuring the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of every manuscript submitted to JURIBMAS.

1. Overview

JURIBMAS applies a peer review process to evaluate the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and potential contribution of submitted manuscripts. The process is designed to support fair, transparent, confidential, and academically responsible editorial decisions.

2. Review Model

JURIBMAS uses a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

  • Author-identifying information should be removed from the review manuscript where applicable.
  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and the relevance of their academic background to the manuscript topic.
  • Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.
  • Reviewer assignments and editorial decisions are managed by the journal's editorial team.

3. Stages of the Peer Review Process

1

Initial Submission

The editorial office checks whether the manuscript meets the journal's submission requirements, scope, formatting guidelines, and basic ethical standards.

2

Editorial Screening

The editor evaluates the manuscript's relevance, originality, scholarly contribution, completeness, and suitability for external review. Manuscripts outside the journal's scope or failing essential requirements may be rejected at this stage.

3

Reviewer Assignment

Suitable independent reviewers are invited to assess the manuscript. The journal aims to obtain evaluations from at least two reviewers, subject to reviewer availability and editorial requirements.

4

External Review

Reviewers assess the manuscript's quality, methodology, supporting evidence, clarity, references, ethical considerations, and contribution to its field.

5

Editorial Decision

The editor considers the reviewers' recommendations and the manuscript's overall quality before communicating a decision to the author.

6

Revision and Final Decision

Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts. Revised submissions may be returned to reviewers when necessary. Final acceptance depends on the editor's assessment of the revised manuscript.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to consider the following criteria, as applicable to the manuscript:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
  • Originality and significance of the contribution.
  • Clarity of the research problem, objectives, and argument.
  • Appropriateness and transparency of the methods.
  • Accuracy and adequacy of data analysis and interpretation.
  • Quality of the discussion and conclusions.
  • Relevance and reliability of references.
  • Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity standards.
  • Clarity, organization, language, and presentation.

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on the review reports and editorial assessment, one of the following decisions may be issued:

Accept
The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any required final editorial or production checks.
Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited changes before a final decision can be made.
Major Revision
Substantial changes are required. The revised manuscript may undergo another round of review.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication or cannot be adequately improved within the editorial process.

6. Author Responsibilities

Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments professionally and address each substantive comment in a revision response. When a recommendation cannot be followed, authors should provide a clear and evidence-based explanation.

Authors must ensure that submitted work is original, accurately reported, properly referenced, and compliant with the journal's publication ethics policies. Revision does not guarantee acceptance.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality

  • Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have relevant expertise and sufficient time.
  • Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartiality may be compromised.
  • Manuscripts and review materials must be treated as confidential and must not be shared or used for personal advantage.
  • Reviewers should provide fair, respectful, specific, and constructive feedback.
  • Reviewers must not use the review process to obtain improper citation advantages or promote personal interests.

8. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

JURIBMAS expects authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold principles of honesty, impartiality, confidentiality, and responsible scholarly communication. Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and other potential ethical violations may be investigated in accordance with the journal's applicable policies.

Editorial decisions must not be based on an author's personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, or commercial interests. Where appropriate, the editorial team may request clarification, additional documentation, or ethical approval information.

9. Review Timeline

The review duration depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, and the time authors need to respond. JURIBMAS communicates editorial decisions through its submission system. Any target review period should be published only when it reflects the journal's actual editorial workflow.

Commitment to Fair and Rigorous Review

JURIBMAS is committed to maintaining a responsible editorial process that supports scholarly quality, research integrity, and constructive academic communication.