Initial Review
The initial review is the first step taken by the editor to ensure that the submitted article meets the quality standards of PUSKAPSI Law Review. The editor will check the article's relevance to the journal's scope, as well as ensure that it has a complete abstract, keywords, and references. If the article does not meet the standards, the editor may reject it or ask the author to revise it before proceeding to the review process.
The editor should also ensure that the article is free from plagiarism, Excessive Generative AI and other errors that may affect its quality. This initial review is crucial in ensuring that the article sent for review is of good quality and relevant to the journal's scope.
Reviewer Selection
Selecting the right reviewer is a critical step in the editorial process. The editor should choose a reviewer who is competent and knowledgeable in the article's field. The reviewer should be able to provide constructive and specific comments. The editor should also ensure that the reviewer has no conflict of interest with the author, so the review process can be conducted objectively and fairly. The editor can select reviewers from a list of registered reviewers or search for new reviewers who are suitable for the article's field. The editor should also provide clear instructions to the reviewer about the review process.
Review Process
The review process is a crucial step in the editorial process. The reviewer will review the article and provide constructive and specific comments. The editor should ensure that the review process is conducted objectively and fairly, so the author can receive constructive feedback. The editor should also give the reviewer sufficient time to conduct the review, usually 2-4 weeks. The editor should ensure that the reviewer provides specific and constructive comments, so the author can make the necessary revisions.
Editorial Decision
The editorial decision is a critical step in the editorial process. The editor should make a decision (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) based on the review results. The editor should ensure that the decision is based on the article's quality and relevance to the journal's scope. The editor should also provide clear and constructive feedback to the author, so they understand the decision. The editor should ensure that the decision is made objectively and fairly, so the author receives a fair decision.
Communication with Authors
Communication with authors is a crucial step in the editorial process. The editor should ensure that the author understands the editorial decision and can make the necessary revisions. The editor should also provide clear information about the publication process, so the author understands the next steps. The editor should provide constructive and specific feedback to the author, so they can make the necessary revisions. The editor should ensure that communication with the author is conducted objectively and fairly, so the author receives fair feedback.