Policies

Copyright Notice

By publishing with Indonesian Comparative Law Review, authors agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain the copyright to their work and grant Indonesian Comparative Law Review the right of first publication, while also licensing the work under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). This license permits others to share the work, provided they acknowledge the author and the initial publication in this journal.

2. Authors may enter into separate agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the published version of their work, such as posting it to an institutional repository or including it in a book, with acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

3. Authors are encouraged to share their work online, for example on institutional repositories or personal websites, both before and during the submission process. This practice can lead to productive exchanges and increased citation of published work.

 

Focus and Scope

ICLR is a journal that aims to promote analytical work in comparative law, encouraging a contextual, theoretical, and interdisciplinary approach. The journal covers various aspects of comparative law across jurisdictions, including national legal systems, dispute settlement mechanisms, contract law, intellectual property rights, business law, antitrust and competition law, human rights, constitutional law, administrative law and good governance, environment and climate change law, labor law, tax law, industrial law, land law, animal protection law, medical law, technology and artificial intelligence law, local wisdom, criminology, and victimology law. ICLR serves as a central hub for developing and sharing knowledge related to comparative law, primarily from a social science perspective, to both academic and lay audiences. The journal publishes theoretical, methodological, and applied papers to promote research and scholarship in comparative law.

 

Open Access Policy

ICLR believes that knowledge is open to all and it should be freely accessible. ICLR makes all content freely available to all researchers worldwide, ensuring maximum dissemination of content through its website. ICLR allows for immediate free access to the work and permits any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. 

 

Publication Fees

Indonesian Comparaive Law eview is a journal publications that are not oriented to profit. Therefore, for the publication process, ICLR regarding certain costs, namely:

  1. The cost of article submission  0
  2. Processing Fees for the publication of articles accepted IDR 500.000,- 
 

Peer Review Process

Editor in Chief will assign the manuscript to Managing Editor for further handling. The Managing Editor will request at least two scientists to review the research article manuscript. All manuscripts are subject to double-blind peer review, both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process to meet standards of academic excellence. All papers are fully peer-reviewed. We only publish articles that have been reviewed and approved by highly qualified researchers with expertise in a field appropriate (at least two reviewers per article). Indonesian Comparative Law Review (ICLR) maintains the standards of double blind-peer review while increasing the efficiency of the process. All research articles published in the Indonesian Comparative Law Review (ICLR) undergo full peer review, the key characteristics of which are listed below:

  1. Indonesian Comparative Law Review (ICLR) is applying a two-stage process: After the technical check, your submission will be first reviewed by the editorial team for publication suitability in the journal. If suitable, it will then be assigned to one of the editors for handling the review and decision process.
  2. If your manuscript matches the scope and satisfies the criteria of Indonesian Comparative Law Review (ICLR) your paper will be assigned to an Editor. The Editor will identify and contact two reviewers who are acknowledged experts in the field. Since peer review is a voluntary service, it can take some time but please be assured that the Editor will regularly remind reviewers if they do not reply in a timely manner. During this stage, the status will appear as "Under Review".
  3. Once the Editor has received the minimum number of expert reviews, the status will change to "Required Reviews Complete".
  4. It is also possible that the Editor may decide that your manuscript does not meet the journal criteria or scope and that it should not be considered further. In this case, the Editor will immediately notify you that the manuscript has been rejected and may recommend a more suitable journal.

Peer review of referred papers:

Editors of Indonesian Comparative Law Review (ICLR) will decide promptly whether to accept, reject or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting journals. Also, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. The authors will be advised when Editors decide, further review is required. Submitted articles will be first review by the editor for the topic and writing style according to the guidelines. All manuscripts are subject to double-blind peer-review, both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process to meet standards of academic excellence. In short, the steps are:

  1. Manuscript Submission (by author).
  2. Manuscript Check and Selection (by manager and editors). 
  3. Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review. Prior to further processing steps, plagiarism check using Turnitin is applied for each manuscript.
  4. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers).
  5. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on reviewers comments).
  6. Paper Revision (by author)
  7. Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestion (by author) with the similar flow to point number 1. 
  8. If the reviewer seems to be satisfied with revision, notification for acceptance (by editor). 
  9. Galley proof and publishing process.

The steps point number 1 to 5 are considered as 1 round of the peer-reviewing process (see the grey area in the figure). The editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

  1. Accepted, as it is. The journal will publish the paper in its original form;
  2. Accepted by Minor Revisions, the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections (let authors revise within the stipulated time);
  3. Accepted by Major Revisions, the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors (let authors revise within the stipulated time);
  4. Resubmit (conditional rejection), the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision-making after the authors make major changes;
  5. Rejected (outright rejection), the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.
  6.  
 

Publication Frequency

December and June

 

 

Publication Ethics

Indonesian Comparative Law Review (ICLR) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among others, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and Indonesian Comparative Law Review (ICLR) does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who submitted articles: affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either wholly or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers, within Indonesian Comparative Law Review (ICLR) are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Section A: Publication and authorship 

  1. All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular manuscript.
  2. The review process is double-blind peer-review.
  3. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
  4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication. 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
  4. The authors must participate in the peer-review process. 
  5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  7. The authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  8. The authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. The authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of research funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to publication’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.

 

 

Plagiarism Screening

Plagiarism screening will be conducted by Indonesian Comparative Law Review (ICLR) Editorial Board using Turnitin app..

  1. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are not allowed;
  2. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted;
  3. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable;
  4. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Working Process:

  1. Editorial Team checking manuscript on offline and online database manually (checking proper citation and quotation);
  2. Editorial Team checking manuscript by using Turnitin app. If it is found plagiarism indication (more than 25%), the board will reject the manuscript immediately.

 

 

Retraction, WIthdrawal and Correction

Policy Statement

Indonesian Comparative Law Review (ICLR) acknowledges that the author(s) have worked hardly in preparing the manuscript and patiently follow the peer-review procedures carried out by the Journal. However, for research purposes, there is also the possibility for published papers to be removed or even withdrawal. Consequently, corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies, if necessary because the article has been found violates the ethics. Those processes will also be carried out with strict criteria to preserve confidence in the authority of its electronic archives. Our dedication and strategy are to preserve the quality and completeness of relevant scientific documents in the collections of researchers and librarians.

Content Integrity and Maintenance

ICLR recognizes the importance to scholars and librarians of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record and attaches the utmost importance to preserving confidence in the authority of its electronic archive. Clicking on the CrossMark icon will remind the reader of the current status of the document and will also provide additional publication record information on the document. Applying the CrossMark icon is a promise made by the ICLR to keep content published and warn readers to change as and when occurred.

Article Retraction

ICLR has a commitment to maintain the quality of the article. In case, if there is a mistake and/or writing error from the author(s) that can impact to the quality and accuracy of the article, the article(s) can be retracted, if:

There is a significant scientific mistake that may invalidate the conclusions of the article, for example, there is strong proof that the findings are not credible that accordingly would generate a misleading legal concept or opinion.

The results have previously been published elsewhere without sufficient cross-reference, permission or justification.

There are ethical problems, such as plagiarism (appropriation of the ideas, procedures, findings or words of other person(s) without giving due credit, even those gained by confidential analysis of the manuscripts of others) or unauthorized authorship.

In order to ensure that retractions are conducted in compliance with the best practice of publishing and the COPE Retraction Guidelines, ICLR adopts the following retraction process:

An article shall be brought to the attention of the editor of the journal.

The editor of the journal should obey the step-by-step instructions according to the COPE flowcharts (including evaluating a response from the author of the article in question).

Before any decision is taken, the reports of the editor should be forwarded to the Ethics Advisory Board which will be a forum to provide an advice and recommendations regarding ethical issues. The goal of this stage is to ensure a consistent approach in line with ethical practices.

The final decision on whether to withdraw is then conveyed to the author and, if necessary, to all other relevant bodies, such as the institution of the author affiliated.

The Retraction Statement is then posted online and released in the next available journal issue.

Notice that if author(s) hold copyright for an article, this does not mean that they automatically have a right to remove it after publication. The credibility of the published scientific manuscript is of utmost importance and the COPE Retraction Rules still apply in such situations.

Article Withdrawal

The author is not allowed to withdraw the submitted manuscripts because the withdrawal is a waste of valuable resources since editors and referees have spent plenty of time editing the manuscript and the works invested by the publisher. The author is obliged to approve the checklist provided before sending the manuscript via Online Journal System (OJS).

If the author demands the removal of his/her manuscript while the manuscript is still under peer-review, the author will be fined by paying USD100 per manuscript.

If the withdrawal of the manuscript is approved for print, the author will be fined by paying USD150 per manuscript.

If the manuscript has been published as "Article in Press" (articles that have been accepted for publication but which has not been formally published and will not have the complete volume/issue/page information) that include errors, or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s), or are determined to violate our journal publishing ethics guidelines in the view of the editors (such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data and the like), maybe "Withdrawn" From the ICLR website. Withdrawing means that the article content (HTML and PDF) is deleted and replaced with an HTML page and PDF simply states that the article has been withdrawn. 

If the author requests removal of the manuscript, an official letter signed by the corresponding author and Head of Department of the affiliated institution should be submitted to the Principal Editor.

Article Correction

ICLR should consider making a correction if:

A small part of otherwise reliable publication reports incorrect data or proves to be inaccurate, particularly if this is the product of an honest mistake.

The list of author(s)or contributors is wrong (e.g. a deserving author has been omitted or someone who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

Corrections to peer-reviewed material fall into one of three categories:

Publisher correction (erratum): inform readers of a significant error made by the publisher/journal staff (usually a production error) which has a negative effect on the publication record or the scientific credibility of the article or on the reputation of the authors or journals.

Author correction (corrigendum): to inform readers of a significant error made by the authors which has a negative effect on the publication record or the scientific reputation of the paper, or on the reputation of the Authors or the journal.

Addendum: an addition to the article by its authors to clarify contradictions, extend existing work, or otherwise explain or update the details in the main work.

The decision whether a correction should be made by the editor(s) of a journal, along with recommendations from the members of the Reviewers or the Editorial Board. Managing Editors will approach the author(s) for clarification.

Article Removal

In a very limited number of instances, it may be appropriate to delete a published article from ICLR online website. This can only happen if the article is explicitly defamatory or infringes the legal rights of others, or if the article is, or we have practical reason to accept it to be, the subject of a court order, or if the article, if acted upon, may pose a significant health danger. In such cases, the metadata (i.e. title and author information) of the article will be preserved, the article will be replaced by a screen showing that the article has been deleted for legal purposes.

Article Replacement

In situations where an article can pose a significant health risk, the authors of the original paper may decide to remove the original faulty and substitute it with a corrected edition. In such cases, the procedures for retraction referred to above will be followed with the difference that the notice of retraction of the article will include a link to the revised re-published article along with the history of the manuscript.