Jurnal Bina Hukum Lingkungan (BHL) relies on a pool of independent reviewers with expertise in environmental law, spatial planning law, agrarian law, and related fields (see the Reviewers page). Peer review is essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of the articles we publish. The Journal is committed to ensuring that every submission undergoes a fair, transparent, and rigorous review process.

1. Review Process Steps

Step 1: Initial Screening

The editorial team checks each manuscript against the Journal’s focus and scope, the Author Guidelines, and the manuscript template. The team also confirms that the following documents are complete:

• the Statement of Originality;
• the AI detection report;
• the originality (similarity) report.

Manuscripts that do not comply with the guidelines or fail to meet basic quality standards are returned to the authors for revision or rejected. Incomplete submissions do not enter the review process.

Step 2: Plagiarism and AI Content Check

The editorial team verifies the originality and AI detection reports submitted by the authors and, where necessary, runs its own check using Turnitin or iThenticate. Only manuscripts that stay within the thresholds set out in the Plagiarism Check and AI Policy pages proceed to the next stage. These reports are screening instruments only; they are not the sole basis for a final decision.

Step 3: Assignment to Reviewers

The Journal uses a double-anonymous peer review process:

• reviewers do not know the identities of the authors;
• authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

Authors must therefore remove identifying information from the manuscript file. Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field of law.

Step 4: Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript on the basis of:

• originality and significance of the research;
• clarity and coherence of the arguments;
• methodological rigor, including the accuracy and currency of the legal sources cited;
• relevance to the field of law and alignment with the Journal’s scope.

Reviewers provide detailed comments and one of the following recommendations:

• accept without revisions;
• minor revisions required;
• major revisions required;
• reject.

Step 5: Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial team makes the final decision. Authors are notified of the decision together with the reviewers’ comments. Where reviewers’ recommendations conflict, the editorial team may seek an additional review before deciding.

Step 6: Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are required, authors must resubmit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe, together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Any change to the authorship at this stage is governed by the Authorship Criteria.

Step 7: Final Acceptance and Publication

Once the manuscript meets all requirements, it is accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are edited for grammar, formatting, and consistency before publication.

2. Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

• expertise in the subject area of the manuscript;
• absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or their research;
• availability and commitment to providing a timely review.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Confidentiality. All submitted manuscripts and review details are treated with the utmost confidentiality. Reviewers must not share or use any part of a manuscript outside the review process.
• Use of AI. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, or any part of them, to AI tools, and their assessments must reflect their own expert judgment, in accordance with the AI Policy.
• Conflicts of interest. Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest and decline the review when it cannot be resolved.
• Objectivity. Reviews must be constructive, respectful, and based on the content of the manuscript, not on the personal characteristics of the authors.
• Suspected misconduct. Reviewers who suspect plagiarism, fabricated sources, or other misconduct should report it confidentially to the editor, in line with the Research Misconduct policy.

4. Editor Responsibilities

Editors must treat all manuscripts and correspondence as confidential, must not handle manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, and must make decisions based on the scholarly merit of the manuscript.

5. Complaints and Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the editor, stating the grounds for the appeal. The Editorial Board will consider the appeal, and its decision is final.