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, customary institution law, religious jurisprudence law, international regime 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...

 

Publication Ethics

Please complete and return this form and retaining a copy for your records.

Hasanuddin Law Review (Hasanuddin Law Rev. - HALREV) is a peer-reviewed journal published by Faculty of Law Hasanuddin University. The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. All authors submitting their works to the journal for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors’ contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works. 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 journal of HALREV is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors 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.

Faculty of Law Hasanuddin University as the publisher of HALREV takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously and we recognize our ethical behavior and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Faculty of Law Hasanuddin University and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Publication decisions. The editor of the Hasanuddin Law Review 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 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 co nfer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play. The editor at any time evaluate 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 express written consent of the author.

 

Duties of Editors

The editor 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 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.

Fair play. The 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 express written consent of the author.


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.

Acknowledgement of Sources. 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. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

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.

 

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as 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.

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 that 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.

Acknowledgement 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 there are others who 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 on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest. All authors should 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.

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.

 

 

Article Processing Charges (APCs)

Hasanuddin Law Review welcomes article submissions and does not charge Article Processing Charges (APCs).

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.

 


 

Plagiarism Policy

  • Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are not allowed;
  • 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;
  • 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;
  • 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.

 

 

Indexing and Abstracting

Hasanuddin Law Review has been covered by the following indexing site:

  1. SCOPUS
  2. EBSCO Open Science Directory
  3. Science and Technology Index (SINTA 1)
  4. Microsoft Academic Search
  5. PUBLONS – Web of Science Group
  6. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  7. Index Copernicus International (ICI)
  8. Harvard Library
  9. DIMENSIONS
  10. University of Birmingham Libraries
  11. German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA) Information Centre
  12. Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD)
  13. University of Edinburgh Libraries
  14. JISC Library Hub Discover, United Kingdom
  15. Aberystwyth University Library
  16. Bangor University Library
  17. University of Bath Library
  18. Cardiff University Libraries
  19. Google Scholar
  20. National Library of Scotland
  21. The University of Manchester Library
  22. Indonesia One Search
  23. Imperial College London Library
  24. Electronic Journal Library (EZB), Regensburg
  25. Open Academic Journals Index (OAJI)
  26. Directory of Research Journals Indexing
  27. Kind Congress Science
  28. OCLC World Cat
  29. Scientific and Literature (SCLIT)
  30. HINARI Research for Health (WHO)
  31. Libraries-Leiden University
  32. Search Oxford Library Online
  33. Système Universitaire de Documentation (SUDOC)
  34. Florida Institute of Technology Library
  35. The Library of University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
  36. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)
  37. Berlin Social Science Center
  38. Saarländischen Virtuellen Katalog
  39. Universität Leipzig, Germany
  40. MORAREF
  41. Universität zu Köln, Germany
  42. Leibniz Information Centre for Life Sciences (ZB MED)
  43. Cite Factor: Academic Scientific Journal
  44. Scientific Indexing Services
  45. Scholarsteer: Scholarly Information
  46. MENALIB – Webportal des Fachinformationsdienstes Nahost
  47. Ingenta Connect
  48. Scientific Journal Impact Factor
  49. International Scientific Indexing (ISI)
  50. Scientific & Literature (Scilit)
  51. Vancouver Public Library
  52. Universiteitsbibliotheek Gent
  53. Solent University Library
  54. KindCongress (KC)
  55. Penn State University Libraries
  56. Türk Eğitim İndeksi
  57. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore