Publication Ethics

Jurnal Kajian Pembaruan Hukum (JKPH, E-ISSN 2776-9828) is published by the Master's Program, Faculty of Law, University of Jember, Indonesia. The journal follows the COPE Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Where an ethical question arises that these policies do not address, the editors follow the relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts.

These policies apply to all content the journal publishes, including articles, notes, book reviews, and any special issues. Where a practice departs from them, the item concerned states the departure.

1. Editorial independence, diversity, and inclusion

Editorial decisions are based solely on a manuscript's scholarly merit, originality, relevance to the journal's scope, and the soundness of its reasoning. They are not affected by the authors' nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, institutional affiliation, career stage, political beliefs, or ability to pay fees. The publisher does not intervene in editorial decisions.

The journal is committed to accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion in all aspects of its work. In keeping with its focus on the Global South, it seeks a range of voices among its authors, reviewers, and editorial board, including scholars from outside Indonesia and from under-represented institutions and regions. The editorial board reviews the journal's policies at least once a year to ensure none creates barriers for anyone wishing to engage with the journal, and reviews the board's composition in the same cycle.

2. Responsibilities of the publisher

The Master's Program, Faculty of Law, University of Jember:

guarantees the editorial independence of the editors;
funds and maintains the journal's website, secure (https) infrastructure, DOI registration through Crossref, and long-term digital preservation;
supports the editors in handling allegations of misconduct, corrections, and retractions, and cooperates with other publishers and institutions where needed;
ensures that commercial or institutional considerations do not influence editorial decisions.

3. Responsibilities of editors

Publication decisions. The Editor-in-Chief, advised by the handling editor and the reviewers, is responsible for deciding which manuscripts are published. Decisions are made within the limits of the law in force concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
Fair play. Editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content only, as set out in Section 1.
Confidentiality. Editors and editorial staff disclose information about a submitted manuscript only to the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as necessary.
Use of unpublished material. Unpublished material in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the author's express written consent.
Integrity of the record. Editors act on any credible concern about a submitted or published work, following Sections 12 and 13.
No citation manipulation. Editors never ask authors to cite the journal, or any editor's work, as a condition of review or acceptance. Reviewers' suggestions of additional sources are advisory and must be justified by the content of the manuscript.

4. Responsibilities of reviewers

Contribution. Peer review assists editors in making decisions and helps authors improve their work.
Promptness. A reviewer who feels unqualified to assess a manuscript, or who cannot complete the review on time, should tell the editor promptly and withdraw from the process.
Confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others, or uploaded to any external tool or service, including generative AI tools, without the editor's authorisation.
Objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with clearly argued comments. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.
Sources and overlap. Reviewers should identify relevant work the authors have not cited and alert the editor to any substantial overlap with other published or submitted work they know of.
Conflicts of interest. Reviewers must decline manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest (Section 7) and must not use privileged information obtained through review for personal advantage.

5. Responsibilities of authors

Accuracy. Authors must present their arguments and findings honestly. Statutes, case law, and other primary legal sources must be cited accurately and with pinpoint references. Empirical data must be reported accurately, without fabrication, falsification, or selective manipulation.
Originality. Submissions must be the authors' own original work. Where the work, words, or ideas of others are used, they must be properly cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication. Authors must not submit a manuscript that is under consideration elsewhere or that substantially reproduces their previously published work. Earlier versions (for example, a conference paper, working paper, or thesis chapter) must be disclosed at submission.
Acknowledgement of sources and funding. Authors must acknowledge the work that shaped their manuscript and disclose all sources of funding.
Errors in published work. Authors who discover a significant error in their published work must notify the editor promptly and cooperate in correcting or retracting it.

6. Authorship and contributorship

Authorship is limited to those who have made a significant intellectual contribution to the conception, research, analysis, or writing of the work, who have approved the final version, and who accept responsibility for its content. Every person who meets these criteria must be listed as an author. Gift, guest, and ghost authorship are not acceptable. Those who contributed in other ways (for example, research assistance, data collection, or language editing) should be named in the acknowledgements.

The corresponding author ensures that all co-authors have seen and approved the manuscript and its submission. Multi-authored articles should include a brief statement of each author's contribution. Changes to the author list after submission require a written request explaining the change, signed by all authors, including any author being removed. Authorship disputes are handled following COPE guidance; the journal does not adjudicate disputes that must be resolved by the authors' institutions.

7. Conflicts of interest

Authors must submit a competing interests statement at the time of submission, disclosing any financial, professional, institutional, or personal interest that could reasonably be seen as influencing the work, including involvement as counsel, expert, or adviser in a case or legislative process the manuscript discusses. If there are no competing interests, the statement should say so. The statement is published with the article.

Reviewers must decline to review where they have a competitive, collaborative, institutional, or personal relationship with the authors, or have been involved in the matter discussed, and must tell the editor of any potential conflict.

Editors and editorial board members may submit their own work to JKPH only under these safeguards:

the author has no access to the manuscript's review record and takes no part in any decision on it;
the manuscript is handled by an editor with no conflict, and reviewed through the standard double-anonymous process by external reviewers;
the article states that the author is a member of the editorial team and that the manuscript was handled independently;
the journal monitors the share of content authored by its editors, board members, and reviewers, and keeps it well below a quarter of the articles in any issue.

An editor with a conflict in any manuscript (for example, a submission from a colleague at the same department, a co-author, or a former doctoral student) recuses themselves, and the manuscript is reassigned.

8. Peer review

Type. Research articles and notes undergo double-anonymous peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file.

Process.

Initial screening (usually within two weeks): the editors check fit with the scope, compliance with the author guidelines, similarity (see the Plagiarism Policy), and basic scholarly quality. Manuscripts may be declined at this stage without external review; the author receives a reasoned decision.
External review: manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two reviewers who are recognised experts in the relevant field and are external to the editorial team. Reviewers are asked to complete their report within three weeks.
Decision: the handling editor makes a recommendation based on the reviewers' reports; the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject). No manuscript is accepted without at least two favourable external reviews. Where reviewers disagree substantially, the editor may seek a further review.
Revision: authors respond to each comment in a response letter. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers.

Timeframes. The average time from submission to first decision is approximately eight weeks. Each published article shows its dates of submission, acceptance, and publication. If a review is delayed, the editors inform the author of the reason and the expected timeline; the author may withdraw the manuscript at any time before acceptance.

Other details.

Authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers and name reviewers they wish to exclude. The editors are not bound by these suggestions and never rely solely on author-suggested reviewers.
Supplementary material, where submitted, is reviewed with the manuscript.
Review reports are not published, and reviewers remain anonymous unless they choose otherwise.
Acceptance is never guaranteed at submission.

Exceptions. Book reviews are commissioned or accepted after editorial review only, not external peer review, and are identified as such. Editorials are not peer reviewed. Any other item published under an exception to this policy states the review it received.

9. Ethical oversight of research involving people

Doctrinal and theoretical legal scholarship ordinarily does not require ethics approval. Socio-legal and empirical research involving human participants (for example, interviews, surveys, focus groups, fieldwork, or the use of non-public personal data) must:

have been approved by the relevant institutional research ethics committee, or explain in the manuscript why approval was not required under the rules applicable to the authors;
have obtained the informed consent of participants, with particular care for vulnerable groups, including minors, detainees, and people in dependent relationships;
protect participants' identity and personal data in accordance with applicable law, including Indonesia's Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection and, where relevant, comparable foreign law.

Manuscripts must include a statement on ethics approval and consent where applicable. The editors may ask for supporting documentation and may decline a manuscript that does not meet these standards.

10. Data, sources, and reproducibility

Arguments must be traceable to their sources. Authors should cite legislation, judgements, and official documents precisely enough that readers can locate and verify them and provide stable links for publicly available materials where possible.

For empirical research, the journal encourages authors to make underlying data (such as anonymised interview transcripts, coding frameworks, survey instruments, or datasets) available in a recognised repository, and to include a data availability statement explaining where and how the data can be accessed, or why they cannot be shared (for example, to protect confidentiality). Authors should retain their data for a reasonable period after publication and provide it to the editors on request.

11. Use of artificial intelligence

AI tools cannot be listed as authors, because they cannot take responsibility for the work. Authors must disclose any use of generative AI in preparing a manuscript in the Declaration of Originality and AI Use Statement and remain fully responsible for the accuracy of all content, including citations. Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, or any part of them, into generative AI tools. Full details are set out in the journal's AI Policy.

12. Allegations of research misconduct

Research and publication misconduct includes, among other things, plagiarism (including self-plagiarism and duplicate publication), fabrication or falsification of data or sources, citation manipulation (such as coercive citation or citation stacking), undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship misconduct, manipulation of peer review, and the submission of manuscripts produced by paper mills.

The editors take every credible allegation seriously, whether it concerns a submitted or a published work, and whether it is raised by a reviewer, a reader, or anyone else. Anonymous allegations are considered if they are supported by specific evidence. The editors follow the relevant COPE flowcharts, which generally involve:

a confidential preliminary assessment of the evidence;
contacting the authors and giving them an opportunity to respond;
where the response is unsatisfactory, informing the authors' institution and asking it to investigate;
a proportionate outcome, which may include rejection, correction, an expression of concern, retraction, or, in serious cases, a period during which further submissions from the authors are not considered.

The journal's approach to plagiarism, including similarity screening at submission, is described in its Plagiarism Policy.

13. Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern

The journal follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Correction (erratum or corrigendum): published where an error affects part of an article but not its overall argument or findings. The correction notice is linked to the article, and the corrected version is clearly marked.
Retraction: used where the findings or argument are unreliable because of serious error or misconduct, or where the article is plagiarised or duplicates earlier work. A retraction notice stating the reason and who initiated it is published and linked to the article. The article remains available, clearly watermarked as retracted, so that the scholarly record is preserved.
Expression of concern: may be published while an investigation is ongoing or where the evidence is inconclusive.
Removal: an article is removed from the website only in exceptional circumstances where continued publication would be unlawful (for example, because it is defamatory, infringes third-party rights, or breaches a court order) or would pose a serious risk to a person's safety. The bibliographic record and a notice explaining the removal remain.

14. Post-publication discussion

The journal welcomes scholarly engagement with published work. Readers may send comments, critiques, or corrections concerning a published article to the editorial office. Substantive responses may be submitted as a note, which is subject to the journal's usual review process. The authors of the original article are offered the opportunity to reply, and a reply may be published alongside the response. Concerns about possible errors or misconduct are handled under Sections 12 and 13.

15. Complaints and appeals

Appeals. Authors who believe a decision to reject their manuscript was based on a factual error or a misunderstanding may appeal once, in writing, within 30 days of the decision, to the Editor-in-Chief at jkph@unej.ac.id (subject line: "Appeal: [manuscript ID]"). The appeal must explain specifically why the decision should be reconsidered. It is assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, who may seek an additional independent review. The outcome is communicated within 30 days, and the decision on appeal is final. Disagreement with a reviewer's judgement, without more, is not a ground for appeal.

Complaints. Complaints about the journal's editorial process, the conduct of an editor or reviewer, or the handling of a manuscript may be sent to jkph@unej.ac.id (subject line: "Complaint"). Complaints are acknowledged within seven days and handled by an editor with no involvement in the matter; complaints about the Editor-in-Chief are referred to the publisher. The journal aims to resolve complaints within 30 days and reports the outcome to the complainant. Complaints about journals that are COPE members may also be referred to COPE once the journal's own procedure has been exhausted.

16. Intellectual property, copyright, licensing, and self-archiving

Authors retain copyright in their work and grant JKPH the right of first publication. All articles are published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0), which allows anyone to share and adapt the work, provided the original work is properly attributed and derivative works are distributed under the same licence. The copyright holder and licence are stated on every published article. The copyright of the journal's website is separate from the copyright of published articles.

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce any third-party material (such as figures, tables, or lengthy quotations) not covered by an exception under copyright law, and for identifying such material in the manuscript.

Self-archiving. Authors may deposit the submitted version (preprint), the accepted manuscript, and the published version of their article in any institutional or subject repository, or on a personal website, at any time and without embargo, provided the published version is cited with its DOI.

17. Fees, waivers, and business model

JKPH charges an article processing charge (APC) of IDR 350,000 or USD 20, payable only after a manuscript has been accepted. There are no submission, page, or colour charges.

A full waiver is available where the corresponding author and the majority of co-authors are based in a country classified as low-income by the World Bank. Waiver requests should be sent to jkph@unej.ac.id at the time of submission, with a brief statement of the authors' affiliations and countries of residence.

Fees never influence editorial decisions. Payment is requested only after acceptance, the editors and reviewers who assess a manuscript have no access to information about payment or waiver requests, and a waiver request has no bearing on the outcome of review.

Business model. The journal is funded by the Master's Program, Faculty of Law, University of Jember, supplemented by APC income. It receives no income from subscriptions, advertising, sponsorship, or reprints. No source of funding influences editorial decisions.

18. Advertising and direct marketing

Advertising. JKPH does not accept advertising on its website or in its published content.

Direct marketing. The journal may send calls for papers and announcements by email to scholars working in relevant fields. These messages are targeted to the journal's scope, are sent infrequently, include a way to opt out, and never make misleading claims about the journal's indexing, impact, or review times.

19. Contact

Editorial Office, Jurnal Kajian Pembaruan Hukum
Faculty of Law, Universitas Jember
Jl. Kalimantan No. 37, Kampus Tegalboto, Jember 68121, East Java, Indonesia
Email: jkph@unej.ac.id | Tel: +62 331 335462