UMPurwokerto Law Review
Focus and Scope
The focus of UMPurwokerto Law Review is publishing the manuscript of the outcome study and conceptual ideas specific to the sector of Law science. UMPurwokerto Law Review aims to provide a forum for lectures and researchers on applied law science to publish original articles.
The scope of UMPurwokerto Law Review is Criminal Law, Civil Law, International Law, Islamic Law, Agrarian Law, Administrative Law, Criminal Procedural Law, Commercial Law, Constitutional Law, Civil Procedural Law, Adat Law, Tourism Law, and Environmental Law.
UMPurwokerto Law Review accepts submissions from all over the world. All accepted articles will be published charge of an article-processing charge and will be freely available to all readers with worldwide visibility and coverage.
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed
Peer Review Process
Editors of the UMPurwokerto Law Review will decide promptly whether to accept, reject or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting journals. Also, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. When the editors decide, the authors will be advised that further review is required. The editor will first review submitted articles for the topic and writing style according to the guidelines. All manuscripts are subject to double-blind peer review, both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process to meet standards of academic excellence. In short, the steps are:
- Manuscript Submission (by author).
- Manuscript Check and Selection (by manager and editors).
- Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review. A plagiarism check using Turnitin is applied for each manuscript before further processing steps.
- Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers).
- Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on reviewers' comments).
- Paper Revision (by author)
- Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestion (by author) with a similar flow to point number 1.
- If the reviewer seems satisfied with the revision, notification for acceptance (by editor).
- Galley proof and publishing process.
Steps from 1 to 5 are considered 1 round of the peer-reviewing process (see the grey area in the figure). The editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:
- Accepted, as it is. The journal will publish the paper in its original form;
- Accepted by Minor Revisions, the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections (let authors revise with stipulated time);
- Accepted by Major Revisions, the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors (let authors revise with stipulated time);
- Resubmit (conditional rejection), the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes;
- Rejected (outright rejection), the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...
UMPurwokerto Law Review has high standards for expected ethical behavior by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher. UMPurwokerto Law Review is a peer-reviewed journal, published twice times a year by Faculty of Law Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto. It is available online as open access sources as well as in print. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor-in-chief, the Editorial Board, the reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in UMPurwokerto Law Review is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific methods. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor, the reviewer, the publisher, and the society. As the publisher of UMPurwokerto Law Review takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously and it recognizes its ethical and other responsibilities. UMPurwokerto Law Review committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
The editors of UMPurwokerto Law Review are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editors may be guided by the policies of UMPurwokerto Law Review editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making publication decisions.
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
|Duties of Authors|
|Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.|
|2||Data Access and Retention:|
|Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide such data within a reasonable time.|
|3||Originality and Plagiarism:|
|The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.|
|4||Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication:|
|An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.|
|5||Acknowledgment of Sources:|
|Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.|
|6||Authorship of the Paper:|
|Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.|
|7||Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:|
|All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.|
|8||Fundamental errors in published works:|
|When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.|
|9||Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:|
|If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.|
Duties of Editors
|An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.|
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
|3||Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:|
|Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.|
|The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.|
|5||Review of Manuscripts:|
|The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.|
|Duties of Reviewers|
|1||Contribution to Editorial Decisions:|
|Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.|
|Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process|
|3||Standards of Objectivity:|
|Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.|
|Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.|
|5||Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:|
|Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.|
|6||Acknowledgment of Sources:|
|Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.|
Plagiarism screening will be conducted by MPurwokerto Law Review Editorial Board using Turnitin.