Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The journal particularly welcomes manuscripts employing doctrinal and comparative approaches, while remaining open to socio-legal and interdisciplinary perspectives that enhance understanding of law’s role in society. Jurist-Diction focuses on legal developments in Indonesia and the Global South, covering themes such as criminal law, justice reform, human rights law, law and technology, civil and commercial law, as well as environmental law and sustainable development.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Jurist-Diction Journal undergo a double-blind peer review process facilitated by the Open Journal System (OJS). Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, who assess its originality, contribution to the field, coherence of analysis, grammar, and style.

The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' evaluations, and is discussed during an editorial board meeting. To ensure academic integrity, all submissions are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin software.

The peer review process typically takes an average of 4 to 12 weeks.

Each manuscript is assessed based on both substantive and technical aspects. The journal collaborates with expert reviewers in the field of legal studies, who have extensive experience in managing and publishing in prestigious academic journals at the national/international level.

Publication Frequency

Published three times a year (January-April, May-August, and September-December).

Open Access Policy

Jurist-Diction is an open-access journal, meaning all content is freely available without cost to users or their institutions. Users are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, as well as use them for any other lawful purpose, without requiring prior permission from the publisher or author. This policy aligns with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the CLOCKSS system to maintain a distributed archiving network among participating libraries, enabling them to create permanent archives for long-term preservation and restoration.

Author Fees

Jurist-Diction welcomes article submissions and does not charge Article Processing Charges or Article Publication Fees. For Libraries/individuals, accessing published articles needs no fee and no subscription.

Plagiarism Check

Plagiarism occurs when an author uses another person's work—such as ideas, processes, results, or text—without proper permission, credit, or acknowledgment. Jurist-Diction strictly prohibits all forms of plagiarism and unethical copying. Authors must ensure their submissions are entirely original. Any deliberate use of previously published material without appropriate citation is considered a serious offense and may result in blacklisting.

Authors are strongly advised to use plagiarism detection software to check for similarities before submitting their manuscripts. All submissions to Jurist-Diction are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin before review and publication.

The journal recognizes the following types of plagiarism:

Full Plagiarism – Directly copying previously published content without modification.
Partial Plagiarism – Combining material from multiple sources with extensive rephrasing but inadequate attribution.
Self-Plagiarism – Republishing one’s own previously published work, either in full or in part, without proper citation.

If plagiarism is identified at any stage—before or after acceptance, during editing, or at the proof stage—the editorial team will notify the author and request revisions or proper citations. Manuscripts with more than 30% plagiarism may be rejected.

If plagiarism is discovered after publication, Jurist-Diction will conduct an investigation. If confirmed, the journal will notify the author’s institution and funding agencies. The plagiarized paper will be marked on every page of the PDF, and depending on the severity, it may be formally retracted.

Publication Ethics

Jurist-Diction is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal published by Universitas Airlangga, available in both print and online formats. The journal upholds the highest publication ethics and strictly prohibits all forms of plagiarism. This statement outlines the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in publishing, including authors, the Editor-in-Chief, the editorial board, peer reviewers, and the publisher (Universitas Airlangga), in accordance with COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guidelines for Publication

Publishing in Jurist-Diction contributes to the advancement of a credible and respected body of knowledge. Peer-reviewed articles reflect the quality of the authors’work and the institutions that support them, reinforcing the integrity of the scientific method. Therefore, all parties involved—authors, editors, peer reviewers, publishers, and the academic community—must adhere to ethical standards.

As the publisher, Universitas Airlangga is committed to maintaining ethical oversight throughout the publication process. Editorial decisions remain independent of commercial influences, including advertising and reprint revenue. Additionally, the Faculty of Law, Universitas Airlangga, and the editorial board will facilitate communication with other journals and publishers when necessary.

Editorial Responsibilities

Publication Decisions

The Editor of Jurist-Diction is responsible for determining which submitted articles are published. Decisions are based on the validity, significance, and relevance of the work to researchers and readers. Editors follow the journal’s editorial policies and adhere to legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. They may also consult with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions.

Complaints and Appeals

Jurist-Diction will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to a respected person with respect to the case of complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal business process, i.e. editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guideline. The complaint cases should be sent by email to: jurist-diction@fh.unair.ac.id

Fair Evaluation

Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their intellectual merit, without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or political views.

Confidentiality

The Editor and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisers, or the publisher, as necessary.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must not use unpublished materials from submitted manuscripts in their own research without the author’s explicit written consent

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in the editorial process by providing assessments that help editors make publication decisions. Their feedback also assists authors in improving their manuscripts.

Timeliness

Reviewers who feel unqualified to assess a manuscript or are unable to complete the review promptly should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential. They must not be shared or discussed with others unless explicitly authorized by the editor.

Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted impartially, with constructive criticism and well-supported arguments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should ensure that relevant published work is properly cited. Any claim that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be supported by an appropriate reference. Reviewers must also alert the editor to any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and other published works.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Information obtained through peer review must remain confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in cases where they have conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript.

Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards

Authors must present an accurate and objective account of their research, ensuring that underlying data are represented truthfully. Manuscripts should provide sufficient detail and references to allow replication. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are considered unethical and unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. If they use the ideas or words of others, proper citation or quotation is required.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously or publishing substantially similar research in more than one journal is unethical and unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Authors must properly acknowledge all sources that have influenced their work by citing relevant publications.

Authorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All significant contributors should be listed as co-authors, while others who participated in specific aspects should be acknowledged. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors approve the final version and agree to its submission.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial or other conflicts of interest that could influence the results or interpretation of their research. All sources of funding must also be disclosed.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

If an author discovers a significant error in their published work, they must promptly inform the journal editor or publisher and cooperate fully to correct or retract the paper as necessary.

Article withdrawal

This circumstances can occur if the initial version of the article contains an error, or may have been accidentally sent twice to both Jurist-Diction and/or a different publisher. In addition, it can also occur due to an element of Infringements of the scientific code of ethics, such as double submissions, false claims of authorship, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. Articles that meet the element of Infringements of the code of ethics upon the awareness of the author can make a withdrawal of his article accompanied by a letter of statement withdrawal addressed to the editorial board of Jurist-Diction.

Corrections and Retractions

Jurist-Diction follows the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) documentation and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines in handling corrections and retractions.

The journal ensures rigorous pre-publication review and responds to post-publication concerns with transparency and timeliness. Requests or notifications for correction or retraction may arise from the publication process, authors, or readers/external parties.

Corrections and retractions are classified as follows:

Minor Corrections – Small errors that do not affect the substance of the article (e.g., typographical or metadata errors).
Substantive Corrections – Significant errors requiring changes to text, figures, or data that alter interpretation or accuracy.
Retractions – Withdrawal of an entire article due to serious ethical or scholarly issues. Partial retractions are discouraged and treated as substantive corrections.

The Editor-in-Chief may decide to retract a publication when there is clear and verifiable evidence of serious academic or ethical violations. These include data fabrication, falsification, or other substantial errors that undermine the reliability of the research; plagiarism or redundant publication without proper attribution; and the use of unauthorized data, materials, or confidential information. Retraction may also occur in cases involving copyright infringement, legal or ethical breaches, or research conducted in violation of established ethical standards. Furthermore, publications may be retracted when the peer-review process has been compromised or manipulated, or when authors have failed to disclose a significant conflict of interest that could have influenced the interpretation of the findings or editorial decisions.

Retraction notices will be clearly identified and directly linked to the retracted article in all online and print formats. Each notice will include the article’s title, the names of the authors, the reasons for retraction, and the identity of the individual or institution initiating the retraction. Notices will be written in an objective and factual manner and will remain freely accessible to the public. They will be published promptly to minimize the risk of misinformation or continued citation of unreliable content.

A retraction will not normally be issued in cases where there is an authorship dispute that does not affect the validity of the findings. Likewise, retraction is not appropriate when a correction can adequately resolve the identified issue, when evidence of misconduct is inconclusive or still under investigation, or when post-publication disclosure of a conflict of interest is unlikely to have influenced the article’s conclusions or integrity.

Intellectual Property

The journal’s intellectual property policy follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which recommend transparency regarding copyright, licensing, and publication costs.

The copyright of all published articles remains with the author(s). By submitting to Jurist-Diction, authors grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0). This license permits others to share and adapt the work, provided proper credit is given to the author(s) and the original publication in this journal is acknowledged.

Authors may also enter into separate, non-exclusive agreements for distributing the published version of their article (for example, depositing it in an institutional repository or including it in a book), provided that Jurist-Diction is cited as the original source. Authors are encouraged to share their work online before and during the submission process, as doing so can foster scholarly exchange and increase citation impact.

All published content in this journal is distributed under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License, which allows anyone to copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose—including commercial use—under the following terms:

Post-Publication Discussions

Jurist-Diction encourages open and constructive academic dialogue beyond the point of publication. The journal welcomes comments, critiques, and feedback from readers as part of its commitment to fostering scholarly exchange and advancing legal research.

Readers who wish to share their perspectives on published articles may contact the Editor-in-Chief directly through the contact details provided on the journal’s website. They may also participate in transparent public discussions via the independent platform PubPeer, which facilitates open commentary on published works.

Looking ahead, the journal is committed to improving accessibility and engagement in post-publication dialogue. Future website updates will include a feature that allows readers to post comments directly on published articles, encouraging a more interactive and dynamic exchange of ideas within the academic community.

Artificial Intelligence Policy

The journal recognizes the value of artificial intelligence (AI) in supporting research and writing, particularly in generating ideas, analyzing data, and refining language. When used responsibly, AI can enhance research efficiency and quality. However, large language models (LLMs) and generative AI cannot replace human creativity, critical judgment, or academic integrity. The journal encourages the ethical and transparent use of AI tools by authors, reviewers, and editors in accordance with established publication ethics standards.

For Authors

AI Assistance

The journal recognizes that AI-assisted writing tools are increasingly used in academic work. Tools that enhance language, grammar, or structure—without generating substantive content—are considered assistive AI tools and do not require disclosure. However, authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, validity, and scholarly integrity of their submissions.

Generative AI

When generative AI tools (such as those that produce text, images, data, or references) are used, authors must disclose their use at the time of submission and explain how the tool contributed to the manuscript. Authors must cite original, verifiable sources—not AI tools—as references. The use of AI should be described in the Methods or Acknowledgments section, specifying the model used and its purpose.

Authors are responsible for verifying the accuracy, validity, and originality of all content, correcting any AI-generated errors, biases, or fabricated citations. AI tools, including ChatGPT or similar systems, cannot be credited as authors.

While disclosure of AI use will not result in automatic rejection, undisclosed or inappropriate use—such as plagiarism, false attribution, or fabricated content—may lead to rejection or withdrawal at any stage of the publication process.

For Reviewers and Editors

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) or large language models (LLMs) in editorial processes raises confidentiality and copyright concerns, as these tools may learn from submitted content and reuse it elsewhere.

AI Assistance

Editors and reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality of all editorial work. While reviewers may use AI tools to refine the language of their reports, they must ensure the feedback remains original and constructive. Editors may use AI only for administrative support, such as identifying potential reviewers, but not for generating editorial decisions or correspondence.

Generative AI

The use of ChatGPT or similar tools to generate review reports, decision letters, or summaries of unpublished research is strictly prohibited. Reviews produced inappropriately using AI will be excluded from the editorial process, and the individuals involved may be removed from the reviewer pool.

Inappropriate or Undisclosed Use

Any suspected misuse of generative AI in submitted manuscripts or reviews should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief. Allegations will be investigated jointly by the journal and the publisher, following COPE and internal ethical guidelines.

Direct Marketing

At present, the journal does not engage in any form of direct marketing or promotional outreach to external parties.

======================

Editor-in-Chief
JURIST-DICTION.
Faculty of Law, Universitas Airlangga.