Nomos: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Hukum and its editorial board fully adhere to and comply with the policies and principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ensuring the highest standards of integrity in legal scholarship.

Duties of Editors

Publication Decisions
The editorial board of Nomos: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Hukum is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles on legal studies should be published. Members of the board confer and refer to reviewer recommendations in making this decision, constrained by legal requirements related to libel, defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editorial decisions are based solely on the academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope. They are not influenced by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, religion, or institutional affiliation of the authors.

Confidentiality, Disclosure, and Conflicts of Interest
During the review process, editors must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers. Unpublished materials, legal arguments, data, or research disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's, reviewer’s, or any other reader’s own research or legal practice without the express written consent of the author. Editors will ensure that authors disclose all sources of research funding and any relevant conflicts of interest, particularly those arising from affiliations with legal institutions, governmental bodies, or private entities that may influence the interpretation of legal findings.

Author Relations
Editors strive to ensure that the peer review process at Nomos: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Hukum is fair, unbiased, constructive, and conducted in a timely manner. The journal has established a clear policy for handling submissions from editorial board members, guest editors, or members of the affiliated institution to ensure unbiased review. Author instructions provide explicit guidance about authorship criteria, which is particularly important in collaborative legal research.

Reviewer Relations
Nomos: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Hukum encourages reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible misconduct raised by submissions, such as unethical legal analysis, misrepresentation of case law or statutes, inappropriate data manipulation in empirical legal studies, and failure to consider key legal doctrines. Reviewers are asked to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism, including the uncredited use of legal arguments or interpretations. Reviewers’ comments should be sent to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks. The contributions of reviewers are valued, and the journal will cease to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality, or late reviews.

Quality Assurance
Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality and integrity of the legal research they publish, recognizing that articles may include doctrinal, theoretical, comparative, or empirical approaches with different methodological standards. Editors should seek assurances that the research they publish, especially involving human subjects (e.g., in socio-legal studies), has been approved by an appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board where required. Editors are alert to intellectual property issues and work to handle potential breaches of legal and academic conventions. Errors, inaccurate legal citations, or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Reviewers assist the editorial board in making editorial decisions. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with judgments based on scholarly merit and sound legal reasoning. Observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments and references to relevant legal literature so that authors can use them to improve the paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

Qualification of Reviewers
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the legal research reported in a manuscript (e.g., outside their specific field of law or methodology) or knows that a prompt review is impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, adversarial, or other relationships with any of the authors, their law firms, affiliated institutions, or organizations connected to the paper.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential legal documents. Privileged information, novel legal interpretations, or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage, legal practice, or research.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published legal work, including key cases, statutes, regulations, and scholarly literature, that has not been cited by the authors. References to the ideas or arguments of others 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 or legal brief of which they have personal knowledge.

Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards
Authors of original legal research should present an accurate account of the work performed, whether it is a doctrinal analysis, theoretical inquiry, case study, or empirical investigation. They must provide an objective discussion of its significance to the field of law. Underlying data, such as those from legal databases or empirical surveys, should be represented accurately. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to relevant non-confidential data underlying their analysis, where ethically and legally permissible, and retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements, including misrepresentation of legal authorities, constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality, Plagiarism, and Concurrent Publication
Authors should ensure their work is entirely original and that any work, words, or legal arguments of others have been appropriately acknowledged and cited. Plagiarism in all its forms—from verbatim copying to paraphrasing without attribution—constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting essentially the same manuscript, or research on the same legal issue with marginally different analysis, to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial support (e.g., research grants) or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their legal research. This includes affiliations, advisory roles, or financial interests in organizations with a stake in the legal issues discussed. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Authorship of the Paper
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper. All co-authors must have made significant intellectual contributions to the legal conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All co-authors must have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects (e.g., research assistance, specific commentary) should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy—such as a critical misstatement of law, an incorrect case citation, or a flaw in empirical data—in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and work with the editor to retract or correct the paper through an erratum or corrigendum.