HALREV

Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Hasanuddin Law Review (HALREV) is an open access and peer-reviewed journal that aims to offer an international academic platform for cross-border legal research in multiple governance policies and civil rights law, particularly in developing and emerging countries. These may include but are not limited to various fields such as:

  • Civil Law;
  • Criminal Law;
  • Constitutional and Administrative Law;
  • Indigenous and Local Knowledge;
  • Customary Institution Law;
  • Religious Jurisprudence Law;
  • International Regime Law;
  • Air and Space Law;
  • Legal Pluralism Governance; and 
  • Another section related to contemporary issues in legal scholarship.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Review

Editors
  • Zulfan Hakim
  • Ahsan Yunus
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

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. 

Detailed information about the flow for the manuscript submission (author) to the acceptance by the editor is shown in the following figure.

 

In short, the steps are:

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

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:

  • Accepted, as it is. The journal will publish the paper in its original form;
  • Accepted by Minor Revisions, the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections (let authors revised with stipulated time);
  • 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 revised with stipulated time);
  • Resubmit (conditional rejection), the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes;
  • Rejected (outright rejection), the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.

 

 

Publication Frequency

Hasanuddin Law Review (HALREV) is a journal published by Faculty of Law, Hasanuddin University three times a year in April, August and December.

 

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.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Article Processing Charges

Hasanuddin Law Review welcomes article submissions and does not charge Article Processing Charges (APCs). Authors are not required to pay any article submission fee as part of the submission process to contribute to review costs (free of charges).

Article Submission: 0.00 (USD)
Authors are not required to pay an Article Submission Fee as part of the submission process to contribute to review costs.

Article Publication Charges (APCs): 0.00 (USD)

For Libraries/Individuals, can read and download any full-text articles for free of charge.


 

Publication Ethics Statement

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board of Hasanuddin Law Review Journal will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the co-authors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, Hasanuddin Law Review will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

 

DUTIES OF AUTHORS 

1. Reporting Standards:

Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior.

2. Data Access, Retention and Reproducibility:

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, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Authors are responsible for data reproducibility.

3. Originality and Plagiarism:

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.

4. Authorship and Contributorship of the Paper:

The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.

5. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications:

Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced.

6. Acknowledgement of Sources:

Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.

7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

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

8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works:

If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:

The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.


DUTIES OF EDITORS

1. Publication Decisions:

Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. 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 policies of the journal's editorial board 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. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.

2. Review of Manuscripts:

Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest. Complete Review Policy can be found here.

3. Fair Play:

The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.

4. Confidentiality:

The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.

5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

 

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

1. 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.

2. Confidentiality:

Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

3. Acknowledgement of Sources:

Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.

4. Standards of Objectivity:

Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

5. 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 of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s), notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.

6. Promptness:

The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

 

Retraction and Withdrawal Policy


In principle, journal editors can not independently decide which articles shall be published. In making decisions regarding publishing, editors are guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and are limited by applicable legal requirements relating to defamation, copyright infringement, double publishing, authorship issues, and plagiarism. Articles that have been published will remain extant, exact and unaltered as far as is possible. However, under certain circumstances can arise where articles that have been published must then be withdrawn or even deleted. Such actions should not be carried out except in exceptional circumstances.

A retraction of articles that have been published can be initiated by journal editors, by authors and/or their institutions. In certain cases the retraction must be accompanied by an apology for the previous mistakes and/or expressions of gratitude to those who revealed the error to the author. A retraction of published scientific articles must be accompanied by a statement that the original article must not be published and that data and conclusions should not be used as part of the basis for future research.

Article Withdrawal

This circumstances can occur if the initial version of the article contains an error, or may have been accidentally sent twice to both HALREV and/or a different publisher. In addition, it can also occur due to an element of Infringements of the scientific code of ethics, such as double submissions, authorship issues, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. Articles that meet the element of Infringements of the code of ethics upon the awareness of the author can make a withdrawal of his article accompanied by a letter of statement withdrawal addressed to the editorial board of HALREV.

Article Retraction

A retraction is carried out if an article is indicated to have Infringements of scientific ethical codes, such as double submissions, authorship issues, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, fake authors or the like. Also, a retraction will be used to correct errors in submission or publication. A retraction of an article by the author or editor under the advice of the editorial board of the HALREV.

 

 

Plagiarism Policy

Hasanuddin Law Review will immediately investigate and reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism. Editorial Board will ensure that every published article will not exceed 25% similarity Score.