Mustika Justice employs a rigorous and double-blind peer-review process to ensure the highest quality and scholarly integrity of its published content. This process adheres to the best practices of legal scholarship and academic publishing.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment (Screening)

1. Submission: The author submits the manuscript electronically via the journal's online submission system, confirming that the work is original and has not been simultaneously submitted or previously published elsewhere.

2. Administrative Check: The Editorial Office first checks the manuscript for compliance with the journal’s scope and Author Guidelines (e.g., proper formatting, citation style, word count). Non-compliant manuscripts may be immediately returned to the author for revision or rejected (desk rejection).

3. Academic Merit Screening: The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) or an assigned Associate Editor conducts an initial substantive review to assess the manuscript's relevance, clarity, originality, and contribution to legal scholarship. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable for publication at this stage will be rejected without external review.

2. Peer Review (Double-Blind Review)

1. Reviewer Selection: If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, the assigned Editor selects at least two qualified subject-matter experts (reviewers) from the relevant field of law.

2. Double-Blind Protocol: The identities of both the author(s) and the reviewers are strictly concealed from each other throughout the review process. The manuscript sent to reviewers is stripped of all identifying information, and reviewer reports are anonymized before being returned to the author.

3. Reviewer Evaluation: Reviewers are given a specific timeframe (typically 4-6 weeks) to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

   • Originality and Significance: Does the work present novel research or a new perspective?

   • Methodology and Analysis: Are the research methods sound, and is the legal analysis logically robust?

   • Clarity and Organization: Is the writing clear, well-structured, and persuasive?

   • Contribution to Legal Scholarship: Does the article advance the field or enrich the legal discourse?

4. Reviewer Recommendations: Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide a recommendation to the Editor:

   • Accept (No Revisions): Ready for publication.

   • Minor Revisions: Needs minor corrections before acceptance.

   • Major Revisions: Requires significant rewriting and re-review.

   • Reject: Unsuitable for publication.

3. Editorial Decision and Author Response

1. Decision Compilation: The assigned Editor synthesizes the reviewers’ reports and recommendations.

2. Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on the manuscript:

   • Acceptance: The manuscript proceeds to copyediting.

   • Revisions Required (Minor or Major): The author receives the anonymized reviewer reports and is asked to submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response letter detailing how each comment was addressed.

   • Rejection: The author is informed of the decision, which is typically final.

3. Re-Review (If Necessary): If major revisions were requested, the revised manuscript is often sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation.

4. Final Stages (Post-Acceptance)

1. Copyediting and Proofreading: Accepted manuscripts undergo thorough copyediting for grammar, syntax, legal terminology, and adherence to the journal's citation style.

2. Author Proof: The author is sent a final proof for essential corrections only (typos, factual errors) before final publication.

3. Publication: The article is scheduled for the next available issue of Mustika Justice.