Peer Review Process

'ASABIYAH: Jurnal Pengabdian Hukum is committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review and academic integrity. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous, objective, and transparent evaluation process in full compliance with the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal operates a Double-Blind Peer Review process, wherein the identities of both the authors and the peer reviewers are kept strictly confidential throughout the evaluation. Reviewers are not provided with the names, institutional affiliations, or contact details of the authors. Conversely, authors remain unaware of the identities of the reviewers assigned to evaluate their work. Authors are required to prepare their manuscripts to ensure complete anonymity by removing personal names, acknowledgments, or explicit self-identifying references within the main submission file.

The review workflow begins with an initial desk review and pre-screening conducted by the Managing Editor upon submission. This preliminary stage checks for compliance with the journal’s focus and scope, evaluates text matching and potential plagiarism using detection software such as Turnitin, and verifies basic ethical compliance, including informed consent and artificial intelligence usage disclosures. Manuscripts that fail to meet these essential requirements or fall outside the journal’s scope are rejected immediately without external review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial pre-screening stage are assigned to a minimum of two independent external peer reviewers who are experts in law and community empowerment. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript against COPE-aligned academic standards, assessing its originality, legal relevance, contribution to community empowerment, methodological rigor, clarity of legal analysis, practical impact, and adherence to ethical standards regarding human participants.

Based on the detailed reports and recommendations provided by the peer reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision. Decisions are categorized as accepting the submission, requiring minor revisions, requesting major revisions that necessitate a second round of peer review, or declining the submission. When revisions are required, authors must submit a point-by-point response addressing all comments raised by the reviewers before a final decision is reached.

Peer reviewers assigned by the journal are obligated to adhere strictly to COPE ethical standards. Reviewers must treat all received manuscripts as confidential documents, conduct their evaluations impartially and constructively without personal criticism, and recuse themselves if a financial, personal, or professional conflict of interest exists. Reviewers must also promptly notify the editor if they suspect any form of research misconduct, such as plagiarism or data fabrication. Authors who believe an editorial decision was based on a factual misunderstanding may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief for re-evaluation in accordance with COPE flowcharts.