Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

This journal aims to provide Indonesian academicians and researchers a venue for publishing their original research articles. The scope of the articles published in this journal deals with a broad range of topics in the fields of Criminal Law, Civil Law, International Law, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Islamic Law, Economic Law, Medical Law, Adat Law, Environmental Law, and another section related to contemporary issues in law or interconnection study with Legal Studies.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

  1. Editors first review the submitted manuscript, called initial review by the editors. It will be desk evaluated whether the submitted manuscript is suitable for theAhmad Dahlan Legal Perspectivebased on focus and scopesimilarity score by using Crosscheck-iThenticatemethodological flaw, readability of the articles, and adhering to the submitted paper template.

  2. Furthermorethe manuscript will be sent to at least three anonymous reviewers (Double-Blind Peer-Review)

  3. The anonymous reviewers' comments are then sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses. Afterward, the editorial team meeting suggested the final decision to the revised manuscript by authors.

  4. Finally, the Editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author.

  5. The accepted manuscript then continued to the copyediting and layout editing process to prepare the camera-ready paper.

Review Outcomes

Utilizing feedback from the peer review process, the Editor will make a final publication decision. The review process will take approximately 4 to 12 weeks. Decisions categories include:

  • Reject - Rejected manuscripts will not be published, and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript to Ahmad Dahlan Legal Perspective.

  • Resubmit for Review– The submission needs to be re-worked, but with significant changes, it may be accepted. However, It will require a second round of review.

  • Accept with Revisions - Manuscripts receiving an accept-pending-revisions decision will be published in Ahmad Dahlan Legal Perspective under the condition that Minor or Major modifications are made. Revisions will be reviewed by an editorial team to ensure necessary updates are made prior to publication.

  • Accept - Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form, with no further modifications required.

Correspondence

All correspondence concerning manuscripts should be directed to the Editor of Ahmad Dahlan Legal Perspective and cc to habibi.marwa@law.uad.ac.id. The Editor will direct all correspondence to the lead author; the lead author is responsible for sharing communications with other authors. Beyond communication concerning the review, manuscripts accepted for publication may require additional correspondence to complete copyediting and layout editing.

 

Publication Frequency

Ahmad Dahlan Legal Perspective published biannually; March and September.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Publication Ethics and Malpratactice Statement

Ahmad Dahlan Legal Perspective is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer­­­­­ and the publisher (Universitas Ahmad Dahlan). This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed is an essential building block in developing a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the authors' work and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is, therefore, important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society.  

Universitas Ahmad Dahlan as the publisher of ADLP, its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. Besides, the Universitas Ahmad Dahlan and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Publication decisions

The editor of Ahmad Dahlan Legal Perspective is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the journal's editorial board's policies and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the author's express written consent.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The relevant citation should accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported. A reviewer should also call the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they have personal knowledge of.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

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.

Acknowledgment of Sources

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.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper. All co-authors have seen and approved the paper's final version and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose any financial or another substantive conflict of interest in their manuscript that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

Policy of Screening for Plagiarism

Papers submitted to the  Ahmad Dahlan Legal Perspectivewill be screened for plagiarism using CrossCheck/iThenticate plagiarism detection tools. Ahmad Dahlan Legal Perspective will immediately reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

Before submitting articles to reviewers, those are first checked for similarity/plagiarism tool, by a member of the editorial team. The papers submitted to the Ahmad Dahlan Legal Perspective must-have a similarity level of less than 20% (Exclude Bibliography), and the similarity score to each source is no more than 3%.

Plagiarism is the exposure of another person’s thoughts or words as though they were your own, without permission, credit, or acknowledgment, or because of failing to cite the sources properly. Plagiarism can take diverse forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another. To accurately judge whether an author has plagiarized, we emphasize the following possible situations:

  • An author can literally copy another author’s work- by copying word by word, in whole or in part, without permission, acknowledge or citing the original source. This practice can be identified by comparing the original source and the manuscript/work who is suspected of plagiarism.

  • Substantial copying implies an author reproduces a substantial part of another author, without permission, acknowledge, or citation. The substantial term can be understood both in terms of quality as quantity, being often used in the context of Intellectual property. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole.

  • Paraphrasing involves taking ideas, words, or phrases from a source and crafting them into new sentences within the writing. This practice becomes unethical when the author does not properly cite or does not acknowledge the original work/author. This form of plagiarism is the more difficult form to be identified.

 

Retraction

The papers published in the Ahmad Dahlan Legal Perspectivewill be considered to retract in the publication if:

  1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
  2. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing and permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication).
  3. It constitutes plagiarism.
  4. It reports unethical research.

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org.