Authors submitting to Nomos: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Hukum are expected to meet the highest standards of academic rigor, analytical clarity, and relevance to the field of legal studies. Peer reviews are essential to ensuring the journal maintains its commitment to publishing impactful research that advances legal theory, doctrine, and empirical understanding. As a reviewer, your evaluation helps shape the journal’s contributions to scholarly discourse and the practical development of law.

  1. Review Structure
    A comprehensive review of a manuscript typically includes the following components:
    • Summary: A concise summary of the manuscript’s main argument, contributions, and methodological approach, emphasizing its novelty and relevance to legal scholarship or practice.
    • Evaluation: A balanced critique addressing the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses in relation to key criteria: originality, legal/practical relevance, analytical rigor, and quality of presentation.
    • Recommendation: A clear recommendation based on your evaluation (Accept, Minor Revision Required, Major Revision Required, Reject).
    • Detailed Comments: Constructive feedback aimed at improving the manuscript, addressing critical legal or methodological issues, and providing actionable suggestions for strengthening the argument, analysis, or structure. Confidential remarks to the Editorial Board may also be included if necessary (e.g., concerns about ethical breaches).
      Reviews are submitted anonymously to ensure fairness and transparency.
  1. Criteria for Acceptable Papers
    Manuscripts submitted to Nomos: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Hukum must align with the journal’s focus on high-quality legal scholarship. The following criteria are essential for acceptance:
    • Originality: Manuscripts must present novel legal arguments, fresh interpretations of doctrine, innovative theoretical frameworks, or new empirical findings that contribute meaningfully to legal discourse.
    • Relevance and Impact: Research should address significant legal questions, contemporary debates, gaps in literature, or practical challenges within national, comparative, or international law. Its potential impact on legal theory, policy, or practice should be apparent.
    • Analytical Rigor: The legal analysis, reasoning, and methodology (whether doctrinal, philosophical, historical, comparative, or socio-legal) must be sound, logical, well-structured, and thoroughly supported by evidence (e.g., primary legal sources, case law, statutes, data).
    • Quality of Presentation: Manuscripts should be clearly and precisely written, logically organized, and adhere to strict academic standards regarding legal citation, structure, and language.
      Manuscripts that fall short in these areas may require substantial revisions or be rejected.
  1. Expectations for Paper Content
    An acceptable manuscript should include the following key elements:
    • Clear Research Question and Thesis: The manuscript should clearly articulate the central legal problem or question it addresses and state a coherent, defensible thesis.
    • Demonstration of Novelty: Authors should explicitly highlight what is new or distinctive about their argument or findings, positioning it within the context of existing legal scholarship.
    • Rigorous Legal Analysis: Submissions must demonstrate thorough engagement with relevant legal sources (primary and secondary), apply appropriate interpretative methods, and present a logically sustained argument.
    • Scholarly and Practical Implications: Manuscripts should discuss the implications of their findings for legal theory, further research, law reform, judicial decision-making, or legal practice.
    • Intellectual Integrity: All legal claims and interpretations must be substantiated through rigorous reasoning, accurate citation of authority, and, where applicable, reliable data.
  1. Types of Submissions
    • Doctrinal/Theoretical Papers: These should offer new interpretations of law, develop legal theory, or critically analyze legal concepts with precision and depth.
    • Empirical Legal Studies: Authors should detail research design, methodology (qualitative/quantitative), data collection, and analysis, clearly explaining how their findings contribute to understanding law-in-action.
    • Comparative Legal Studies: Submissions should provide a structured comparison of legal systems, rules, or institutions, drawing clear, insightful conclusions about convergence, divergence, or transferability.
    • Case Notes or Legislative Comments: These should provide in-depth, critical analysis of significant recent judicial decisions or new legislation, evaluating their implications and context.
    • Review Articles: These should synthesize a body of literature on a specific legal topic, identify key debates and gaps, and propose directions for future research.
  1. Comparative Analysis with Related Work
    Authors are expected to position their work within the relevant legal literature. Manuscripts should provide a thorough and critical review of related scholarship, demonstrating how their study engages with, advances, or challenges existing knowledge and arguments in the field.
  2. Quality and Precision
    • Clarity and Conciseness: Manuscripts should use legal terminology precisely and avoid unnecessary jargon. Arguments should be presented in clear, concise, and logically structured prose.
    • Technical Precision: Authors must ensure absolute accuracy in citing legal sources (cases, statutes, regulations, literature). All references must be complete and follow the journal's specified citation style.
  1. Revisions and Review Process
    • Minor Revisions: Typically reviewed by the associate editor. Authors must provide a cover letter and a marked manuscript detailing how they have addressed each of the reviewers’ comments.
    • Major Revisions: Manuscripts requiring significant substantive, methodological, or structural revisions will be re-reviewed by the original reviewers or new experts to ensure all concerns have been adequately addressed. Authors are expected to include a detailed, point-by-point response to all reviewer comments.
  1. Confidentiality
    All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or reference the manuscript's content without prior permission from the editor. Reviewer identities will remain confidential, and all communication with authors should occur exclusively through the journal’s editorial management system.
  2. Submission Instructions
    Please ensure that your review follows the guidelines above. Reviews should be submitted electronically via the journal’s submission portal within the agreed timeframe. For any questions or issues during the review process, please contact the editorial team.