Every manuscript submitted to NUSALEGIS: Journal of Legal Studies is subject to editorial assessment and, where appropriate, independent peer review before a final publication decision is made.

The peer-review process is intended to evaluate the originality, academic quality, methodological appropriateness, legal reasoning, relevance, clarity, ethical integrity, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts.

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Team are responsible for ensuring that editorial decisions are made independently and fairly, without discrimination based on the authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, personal background, or other irrelevant considerations.

Double-Blind Peer Review

NUSALEGIS applies a double-blind peer-review system. The identity of the authors is not disclosed to reviewers, and the identity of reviewers is not disclosed to the authors during the review process.

This mechanism is intended to minimize potential bias and to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated primarily on their academic quality, legal analysis, research methodology, originality, and contribution to legal scholarship.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscript through the NUSALEGIS Online Journal System (OJS) and complete all required manuscript metadata and supporting information.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editorial Team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript complies with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, article template, academic standards, and basic publication requirements.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, lack adequate scholarly quality, or fail to comply substantially with the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected without external peer review.

3. Similarity and Ethical Screening

Before external review, manuscripts may be checked using similarity-detection software and assessed for potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, research misconduct, and other publication-ethics concerns.

Manuscripts with substantial ethical concerns may be returned to the authors for clarification or rejected in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

4. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to independent reviewers selected on the basis of their expertise and relevance to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Normally, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two reviewers. Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity or independence of their assessment.

5. Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and provide comments, recommendations, and constructive suggestions to assist the authors and editors in improving and evaluating the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

6. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' reports, the Editor may issue one of the following decisions:

7. Author Revision

When revision is requested, authors must carefully address the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and editors.

Authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response to reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed or, where a recommendation has not been followed, providing an appropriate academic justification.

8. Re-evaluation

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be re-evaluated by the Editor and/or returned to the original reviewers for further assessment.

Additional rounds of revision may be requested when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and publication standards.

9. Final Decision

The final decision concerning acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor after considering the reviewers' assessments, the authors' revisions, and the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript.

10. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the copyediting, layout, proofreading, and production stages. Authors may be requested to review the final proof before publication.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Academic expertise relevant to the manuscript;
• Experience in research and scholarly publication;
• Independence from the authors and the research;
• Absence of significant conflicts of interest;
• Ability to provide an objective, constructive, and timely scholarly assessment.

Manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal or professional advantage. Reviewer reports and editorial correspondence are also treated confidentially in accordance with journal policy.

Reviewers should decline an invitation to review when they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, academic, or other relationship that could reasonably be perceived as affecting the impartiality of their assessment. Editors must also avoid handling manuscripts where a significant conflict of interest exists.

Peer reviewers provide scholarly recommendations to assist the editorial decision-making process. However, reviewer recommendations do not automatically determine the final outcome. The Editor-in-Chief holds final editorial authority regarding whether a manuscript is accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected, based on reviewer reports, journal policies, academic standards, and publication ethics.

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit, relevance, originality, methodological quality, legal reasoning, and ethical integrity of the manuscript. Commercial considerations, personal relationships, institutional affiliation, or other inappropriate external influences must not determine publication decisions.