Peer Review Process

The Indonesian Journal of Gender Justice and Family Law (InGeFaL) employs a rigorous editorial assessment process overseen jointly by external peer reviewers and the InGeFaL Editorial Board. All submissions are evaluated through a double-blind peer review procedure, thereby safeguarding impartiality and ensuring that editorial decisions are grounded in scholarly merit. The Editor-in-Chief acts as the principal point of contact for authors throughout the process and retains ultimate responsibility for determining whether a manuscript is accepted, rejected, or returned for revision.

Submission requirements and initial administrative screening

Authors are required to prepare manuscripts in strict accordance with the format prescribed by InGeFaL, including adherence to the journal’s official article template. Following submission, each manuscript undergoes an administrative screening to confirm compliance with fundamental submission requirements before it may proceed to editorial evaluation.

Pre-qualification editorial assessment

Once a submission has satisfied the administrative checks, the Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the Associate Editors, undertakes a preliminary appraisal to determine whether the manuscript is suitable to enter the formal review stage. At this point, a manuscript may be declined without external review where one or more of the following conditions apply:

• Misalignment with scope and remit: the topic does not correspond to the journal’s stated focus and scope and would be more appropriately directed to an alternative outlet.

• Insufficient scholarly contribution or methodological weakness: the manuscript fails to meet the journal’s standards due to incomplete data, inappropriate or inadequately justified methodology, limited originality, negligible advancement of existing knowledge, or a lack of coherence between the study’s aims, design, evidence base, and conclusions.

• Non-compliance with author guidelines: the manuscript does not conform to the requirements outlined in the journal’s author instructions.

External peer review

Manuscripts that meet the pre-qualification threshold are forwarded to two or three suitably qualified peer reviewers selected by the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors. Reviewers are expected to assess the submission and return a recommendation, together with substantive comments and actionable suggestions, within three weeks of accepting the review invitation. Where reviewers’ recommendations diverge materially—particularly in circumstances where one reviewer recommends rejection while another advises revision—the Editor-in-Chief may commission an additional review or seek a determination from members of the Editorial Board in order to reach a balanced decision.

Revision process and author responsibilities

Where revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) with the reviewers’ and editors’ feedback. Authors must submit the revised version to the Editor-in-Chief via the journal’s OJS platform within three weeks of receipt of the revision notice. Submissions that exceed the stipulated deadline may be treated as withdrawn; however, authors may request an extension from the Editor-in-Chief prior to the expiry of the revision period.

Re-review and verification of revisions

If reviewers request verification of revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for re-examination. In such cases, reviewers are expected to provide their subsequent recommendation and further comments within three weeks of accepting the re-review request. In parallel, the Editor-in-Chief may refer the revised manuscript to the Associate Editors to determine whether the author has addressed the reviewers’ comments adequately and faithfully.

Associate editorial recommendation and grounds for rejection at the revision stage

Associate Editors may recommend, within two weeks, that the manuscript be accepted, rejected, or returned to the author(s) for further amendments. A manuscript may be rejected at this stage where authors fail to implement the revisions proposed by the reviewers and/or the Editorial Board, or where responses to feedback are incomplete, unsubstantiated, or otherwise inadequate as a rebuttal.

Decision notification, appeals, and editorial reconsideration

If a manuscript is rejected, the Editor-in-Chief will inform the author(s) and provide reasons for the decision. Authors may lodge an appeal where they believe the evaluation has been materially unfair; such an appeal should include a clear rationale and supporting explanation. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal in consultation with the Associate Editor responsible for the submission and will subsequently determine whether the appeal is upheld or denied.

Post-acceptance processing and publication communication

Following formal acceptance by the Editor-in-Chief, the manuscript is forwarded to the technical editor for layout preparation in advance of the editorial board meeting. The Editor-in-Chief will then issue an acceptance letter, including notification of the intended publication issue, to the author(s).