Peer-Review Process

Peer-Review Process

Publication of articles in the South East Asian Law Aspect Journal (SEALA) depends solely on scientific validity and coherence as judged by our editors and peer reviewers, who will also assess whether the writing is comprehensible and whether the work represents a valuable contribution to the field. South East Asian Law Aspect Journal (SEALA) acknowledged the effort and suggestions made by its reviewers.

Initial evaluation of manuscripts

The Editor will first evaluate all manuscripts submitted at a maximum of 4 weeks. Although rare, it is feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the South East Asian Law Aspect Journal (SEALA). Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to expert reviewers for review. It usually took up to 14 weeks.

Type of peer review

Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two to three experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates the already published works, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. The method is anonymous peer review.

Review reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • It is original by stating the objectives and gaps clearly.
  • Is methodologically research
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
  • Has results/findings that are presented and support the conclusions
  • Correctly references previous relevant work.
  • Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.

Decision

Reviewers advise the Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports, and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. Editor's decision is final.

The response of the reviewers will be the basis for the Editor to conclude

  1. Revisions Required
  2. Accept Submission
  3. Decline Submission
  4. Resubmit Elsewhere

An article was rejected for publication due to various considerations, including:

  1. The report does not fit the scope
  2. The information does not follow the rules of writing scientific papers / does not follow the author's guidelines 
  3. The fundamental methodological errors
  4. The author needs to make suggestions for improvements provided by the reviewer with a logical basis.
  5. There are indications of plagiarism of more than 25%