Editorial Team

Chief Editor :

Dr. Ir. I Wayan Adnyana, S.H., M.Kn. (Bali Dwipa University, Indonesia)

Editorial Board :

Dr. Irma Setiawan, S.Pd., M.Pd. (Muhammadiyah Mataram University, Indonesia)

Dr. Ni Ketut Ardani, S.H., M.Kn (Bali Dwipa University, Indonesia)

Dr. Ni Wayan Suryathi S.E., S.H., M.M., M.Agb. (Undiknas University, Indonesia)

Luh Ketut Ayu Manik Sastrini, S.H., M.H. (Bali Dwipa University, Indonesia)

I Made Aripta Wibawa,SH., M.Ag. (Bali Dwipa University, Indonesia)

Bagus Hermanto S.H. M.H. (Udayana University, Indonesia)

Reviewer : 

Prof. Gautam Kumar Jha (Jawaharlal Nehru University, India)

Prof. Kai Liu (Jiangsu Normal University, China)

Muhammad Bahrul Ulum, Ph.D (Queensland University of Technology, Australia)

Prof. Kurniawan (Mataram University, Indonesia) Google Scholar

Prof. I Gede Yusa (Udayana University, Indonesia) Google Scholar

Prof. I Nyoman Nurjaya (Brawijaya University, Indonesia) Google Scholar

Dr. Ni Luh Gede Astariyani, S.H, M.H (Udayana University, Indonesia) Google Scholar

1. Publication Decisions: 

   Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.

2. Review of Manuscripts: 

   Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

3. Fair Play: 

   The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.

4. Confidentiality: 

   The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and  confidentiality.

5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 

   The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

1. Confidentiality: 

   Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

2. Acknowledgement of Sources: 

   Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.

3. Standards of Objectivity: 

   Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: 

   Reviewers should not consider 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.

5. Promptness: 

   The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.