Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Tata Negara–Hukum Administrasi Negara (JAPHTN-HAN) undergo a rigorous, multi-stage evaluation process designed to ensure scholarly excellence, originality, and adherence to ethical publishing standards. The editorial workflow consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Technical Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is assigned to the Managing Editor for a preliminary assessment. This includes:

• Verifying compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines, including formatting and citation requirements in accordance with the Chicago Manual of Style.
• Conducting a plagiarism check using Turnitin to assess originality and identify potential publication ethics concerns.
• Assessing the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope and thematic focus in Constitutional Law and Administrative Law.
• Returning manuscripts that do not meet technical requirements to the authors for correction or declining submissions that fail to meet the journal's initial requirements.

2. Editorial Evaluation by the Section Editor

Submissions that meet the initial technical requirements are evaluated by the Section Editor to determine whether they warrant further consideration. Based on this assessment, manuscripts may be:

• Forwarded to the peer review stage.
• Returned to the authors with recommendations for revision.
• Declined if they fall outside the journal's scope, lack academic rigor, or fail to meet the required scholarly standards.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts advancing to the peer review stage undergo a double-blind peer review conducted by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. The review process is designed to maintain objectivity and academic integrity through the following procedures:

• The identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous to support an objective and unbiased evaluation.
• Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, methodological soundness, scholarly contribution, coherence, and clarity of presentation.
• Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations to inform editorial decisions and assist authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts.

4. Final Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewers' reports, the Managing Editor, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, the editorial board, determines the manuscript's editorial outcome. The possible decisions are:

• Accepted: The manuscript is approved for publication without further substantive revision.
• Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor corrections to be completed within the specified timeframe.
• Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions in accordance with the reviewers' recommendations before publication can be considered.
• Resubmission Required (Conditional Rejection): The manuscript requires extensive revisions and may be reconsidered through a subsequent submission and evaluation process. Resubmission does not guarantee acceptance.
• Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic or editorial standards and will not be considered further in its current submission.

---

Manuscript Revision Guidelines

Authors whose manuscripts receive a decision of Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Revision Required are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the comments and recommendations provided by the Editor and/or Reviewers of JAPHTN-HAN.

To ensure transparency and facilitate the evaluation of revisions, authors are required to use the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word when preparing the revised manuscript. The Track Changes function must remain activated throughout the revision process so that all additions, deletions, modifications, and other substantive changes can be identified by the Editor and Reviewers.

Required Revision Files

Authors are required to submit the following documents through the journal's online submission system:

1. Revised Manuscript with Track Changes
   A revised version of the manuscript in which all changes made in response to the Editor's and Reviewers' comments remain visible through the Microsoft Word Track Changes function.
2. Clean Revised Manuscript
   A clean version of the revised manuscript in which all revisions have been incorporated and Track Changes, comments, and other revision marks have been removed.
3. Response to Reviewers
   A point-by-point response addressing all comments and recommendations provided by the Editor and Reviewers. Authors should clearly explain the revisions made and, where appropriate, indicate the relevant page, section, paragraph, or other location of the changes in the revised manuscript.

If an author disagrees with a comment or recommendation from a Reviewer, the author should provide a clear and academically justified explanation in the Response to Reviewers rather than simply omitting the requested revision. The Editor will evaluate whether the explanation adequately addresses the reviewer's concern.

Revision Compliance

The Editorial Team of JAPHTN-HAN may return a revised manuscript to the author for correction or completion if:

• the required Track Changes version is not provided;
• the revised manuscript does not clearly indicate the changes made;
• the Response to Reviewers is incomplete;
• the clean version and tracked version are inconsistent; or
• the revisions do not adequately address the comments provided by the Editor and/or Reviewers.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all submitted revision files are complete, consistent, and prepared in accordance with these guidelines. Failure to comply with the revision requirements may delay the editorial evaluation process.

The use of Track Changes is intended to facilitate the editorial evaluation process, improve transparency in the revision process, and enable Editors and Reviewers to efficiently verify whether the comments and recommendations have been adequately addressed.

Editorial Practice References

1. Elsevier. How Do I Submit My Revision with Tracked Changes? Journal Article Publishing Support Center.
   Elsevier Support
2. Wiley. Handling Revisions and Unsubmit Policies. Wiley Author Services.
   Wiley Author Services
3. Springer Nature. Instructions for Authors. Springer Nature.