Peer Review Process
Journal of Sinar Law and Public Policy (JSLPP) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of every published article.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
Every manuscript submitted to JSLPP is first assessed by the editor-in-chief or an assigned handling editor to determine its fit with the journal's aim and scope, its originality, and the overall quality of writing and argumentation. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements, or that fall outside the journal's scope, may be rejected at this stage without external review (desk rejection).
2. Plagiarism Check
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are checked for similarity/plagiarism using a recognized similarity-detection tool before being forwarded for peer review, in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Screening Policy.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts meeting the initial requirements are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in law and/or public policy for double-blind review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on criteria such as originality, legal/theoretical soundness, methodological rigor, clarity of argument, relevance to current legal or policy debates, and quality of writing.
4. Review Timeline
The review process typically takes 4–6 months, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluation within 4 weeks of accepting a review invitation.
5. Handling Disagreement Between Reviewers
If the two reviewers' recommendations differ substantially, a third reviewer will be invited to provide an additional independent assessment before an editorial decision is made.
6. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' reports, the handling editor makes one of the following recommendations to the editor-in-chief:
| Accept as written without any revisions
| Accept with minor revisions (a second round of review is not necessary)
| Accept with major revisions (a second round of review will be necessary)
| Reject the paper is not suitable for publication
The final decision on publication always rests with the JSLPP editors.
7. Revision and Resubmission
Authors requested to revise their manuscript must submit a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments along with the revised manuscript by the given deadline. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation, particularly in the case of major revisions.
8. Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors are required to keep the content of the manuscript, the review comments, and the identities of the parties involved confidential throughout and after the review process, and must not use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript for their own research without the express written consent of the author(s).
9. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers who identify a conflict of interest whether personal, financial, institutional, or professional with the author(s) or the subject matter of the manuscript must declare this to the editor and recuse themselves from the review process.
Manuscripts submitted to JSLPP that involve empirical or field-based public policy research are also expected to comply with applicable ethical standards, including, where relevant, approval from an appropriate ethics committee.
