Focus and Scope

The focus of Journal of Morality and Legal Culture is publishing the manuscript of outcome study, and conceptual ideas which specific in the sector of Law science. Journal of Morality and Legal Culture aims to provide a forum for lectures and researchers on applied law science to publish the original articles.

The scope of Journal of Morality and Legal Culture is Criminal Law, Civil Law, International Law, Islamic Law, Agrarian Law, Administrative Law, Criminal Procedural Law, Commercial Law, Constitutional Law, Civil Procedural Law, Adat Law, Tourism Law and Environmental Law.

Journal of Morality and Legal Culture accepts submission from all over the world. All accepted articles will be published charges of an article-processing charge and will be freely available to all readers with worldwide visibility and coverage.

Journal of Morality and Legal Culture

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

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. All papers are fully peer-reviewed. We only publish articles that have been reviewed and approved by highly qualified researchers with expertise in a field appropriate (at least two reviewers per article). Journal of Morality and Legal Culture maintains the standards of double blind-peer review while increasing the efficiency of the process. All research articles published in the Journal of Morality and Legal Culture undergo full peer review, key characteristics of which are listed below:

1. Journal of Morality and Legal Culture is applying a two-stage process: After the technical check your submission will be first reviewed by the editorial team for publication suitability in the journal. If suitable, it will then be assigned to one of the editors for handling the review and decision process.
2. If your manuscript matches the scope and satisfies the criteria of Journal of Morality and Legal Culture, your paper will be assigned to an Editor. The Editor will identify and contact two reviewers who are acknowledged experts in the field. Since peer-review is a voluntary service, it can take some time but please be assured that the Editor will regularly remind reviewers if they do not reply in a timely manner. During this stage, the status will appear as "Under Review".

3. Once the Editor has received the minimum number of expert reviews, the status will change to "Required Reviews Complete".

4. It is also possible that the Editor may decide that your manuscript does not meet the journal criteria or scope and that it should not be considered further. In this case, the Editor will immediately notify you that the manuscript has been rejected and may recommend a more suitable journal.

Peer review of referred papers:

Editors of the Journal of Morality and Legal Culture will decide promptly whether to accept, reject or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting journals. Also, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. The authors will be advised when Editors decide, further review is required. Submitted articles will be first review by the editor for the topic and writing style according to the guidelines. 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. In short, the steps are:

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

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:

1. Accepted, as it is. The journal will publish the paper in its original form;
2. Accepted by Minor Revisions, the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections (let authors revised with stipulated time);
3. 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);
4. Resubmit (conditional rejection), the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes;
5. Rejected (outright rejection), the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.

Publication Frequency

Journal of Morality and Legal Culture is published twice a year, in July and December.

Open Access Policy

Readers have right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all articles in Journal of Morality and Legal Culture. 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...

Screening Plagiarism

Plagiarism screening will be conducted by Journal of Morality and Legal Culture. Editorial Board using Turnitin app..

1. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are not allowed;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. 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.

Publication Ethics

Journal of Morality and Legal Culture,  is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among others, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and the Journal of Morality and Legal Culture does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who submitted articles: affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either wholly or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers, within the Journal of Morality and Legal Culture, are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Section A: Publication and authorship 

1. All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular manuscript.
2. The review process is double-blind peer-review.
3. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
8. No research can be included in more than one publication. 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
4. The authors must participate in the peer-review process. 
5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
7. The authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
8. The authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
9. The authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Reviewers should not review 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. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
6. Editors should have a clear picture of research funding sources.
7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to publication’s scope.
8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.