Review Process Policy

Every research article submitted to Padjadjaran Law Review (PLR) goes through peer review. The purpose is to make sure that what PLR publishes is original, sound in its scholarship, and a real contribution to legal studies. PLR's review practice is guided by the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Initial Screening

Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editorial team checks that it:

1) falls within PLR's Focus and Scope;
2) complies with the Author Guidelines and the Article Template;
3) is accompanied by the Originality Statement; and
4) is accompanied by a Turnitin report showing a similarity level of no more than 20%, generated with the 5) filters set out in the Author Guidelines (exclude quotes, exclude bibliography, and do not exclude by size), in line with PLR's Plagiarism Policy.

A manuscript that fails any of these checks is rejected by the editorial team without being reviewed.

2. Review Model and Reviewers
1) PLR uses double-blind review. Reviewers are not told who wrote the manuscript, and authors are not told who reviewed it. Authors must therefore make sure the manuscript does not reveal their identity.
2) Each manuscript that passes screening is assessed by at least two independent reviewers who have expertise in the relevant area of law.
3) Where possible, at least one reviewer is from an institution different from the author's.

3. What Reviewers Assess

Reviewers evaluate a manuscript on:

1) its originality and contribution to legal scholarship, practice, or policy;
2) the accuracy and depth of its legal analysis;
3) whether its research method is appropriate;
4) whether its sources are relevant and up to date;
5) the clarity of its structure and language; and
6) whether its conclusions follow from its analysis.

4. Recommendations and Decisions

Each reviewer recommends that the manuscript be accepted, accepted with minor revision, returned for major revision, or rejected. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the reviewers' reports. When reviewers' views differ widely, the editors may seek an additional review. Authors who are asked to revise must respond to the reviewers' comments in the revised version.

5. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
1) A manuscript under review is confidential. Reviewers must not share it, use its content for their own benefit, or enter any part of it into generative AI tools.
2) Reviewers must decline the review if they have a conflict of interest, and must tell the editors at once if one arises during the review, in accordance with PLR's Conflict of Interest policy.
3) Manuscripts from members of the editorial team, or from authors at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, follow the same process as all others. They are handled by editors who have no conflict of interest.