Manuscripts submitted to the Jurnal Hukum Saraswati (JHS) undergo an initial screening by the Editor to ensure thematic relevance and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with the author guidelines and journal template, and adherence to academic writing standards. Manuscripts that pass this preliminary review are forwarded to reviewers for substantive evaluation. Reviewers are requested to conduct an objective, critical, and constructive assessment based on the criteria outlined below.

1. Title

The title should accurately reflect the focus, scope, and main argument of the article. Reviewers are asked to assess whether:

• The title is concise, clear, and informative.
• The title reflects the article’s main argument or key findings rather than being merely descriptive.
• Unnecessary terms and abbreviations are avoided.
• The title clearly indicates the article’s relevance to the field.

2. Abstract

The abstract must concisely reflect the entire content of the article and be written in a single paragraph of 150–250 words. The abstract should include the following elements (not necessarily in this order):

• The research background or problem statement.
• The objective or focus of the study.
• The research methodology.
• The main findings.
• The central argument and scholarly contributions or implications of the study.

Reviewers should ensure that the abstract explicitly states the article’s findings and contributions rather than merely describing the topic.

3. Keywords

Keywords serve indexing and academic search purposes. Reviewers should assess whether the keywords:

• Consist of 3–6 words or phrases.
• Represent the main concepts discussed in the article.
• Are relevant to the journal’s focus.
• Avoid overly general, vague, or ambiguous terms.

4. Introduction

The introduction should contextualize the study and clearly position the article within relevant academic debates. It must be logically structured, proportionate in length, and conclude with a clear articulation of the article’s central argument.

Ideally, the introduction should be presented in 4–6 paragraphs covering:

• A general issue in a global or regional context related to the research problem.
• The relevance of the issue within the specific context of the study and an explanation of its scholarly significance.
• A brief review of key relevant literature and major scholarly debates.
• A clear identification of the research gap and an explicit statement of the article’s main argument or contribution.
• A statement of the research objectives or questions, or a brief outline of the article’s structure (optional).

5. Methodology

The methodology section should clearly explain how the research was conducted and how the data were analyzed. Reviewers must ensure that the methodological approach is appropriate to the research objectives and sufficiently rigorous.

The methodology should be presented in 2–3 paragraphs and include:

• The research type and approach, including justification of the chosen method.
• Data sources and data collection techniques.
• Data analysis techniques and analytical or theoretical frameworks employed.

If the methodology is described in a single paragraph, authors may integrate it into the final paragraph of the introduction.

6. Results and Discussion

This section constitutes the core of the article and must present an in-depth and coherent analysis. Reviewers should assess whether:

• The discussion aligns with the research objectives or questions.
• Findings are presented systematically and thematically.
• The analysis engages relevant theories, concepts, and previous studies.
• The implications of the findings are clearly articulated.

7. Conclusion

The conclusion should synthesize the analysis and reaffirm the article’s contribution. It should be reflective and argumentative rather than merely summarizing the discussion.

The conclusion should be presented in 2–3 paragraphs and should:

• Summarize the main findings in relation to the research objectives.
• Highlight the article’s scholarly contributions.
• Acknowledge research limitations and suggest directions for future studies (optional).

8. References

The reference list should demonstrate both breadth and depth of relevant literature. Reviewers should evaluate whether:

• All cited works appear in the reference list.
• Primary and secondary sources are used appropriately.
• At least 50% or more of the references are from reputable academic publications.
• Recent literature (approximately the last ten years) is included.

Reviewer Recommendation

Based on the overall assessment, reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required
• Resubmit for Review
• Resubmit Elsewhere
• Decline Submission
• See Comments

Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, well-reasoned, and constructive comments to support their recommendations.

Note: These reviewer guidelines may also serve as a reference for authors in preparing and revising manuscripts to ensure compliance with the academic standards of the Jurnal Hukum Saraswati (JHS).