About the Journal

Focus and Scope

This journal aims to provide a venue for academicians, researchers, students, and practitioners to publish original research articles or review articles. The scope of the articles published in this journal deals with a broad range of topics, namely:

  1. Criminal Law;
  2. Civil Law;
  3. International Law;
  4. Constitutional Law;
  5. Administrative Law;
  6. Islamic Law;
  7. Customary/Adat Law;
  8. Environmental Law, and;
  9. Other sections related to contemporary issues in law.

Publication Frequency

Alauddin Law Development Journal (ALDEV) is published three times a year in March, August, and November.

Peer Review Process

Submitted manuscripts will be pre-reviewed by the editors, determining whether the manuscript meets to Alauddin Law Development Journal (ALDEV) submission guidelines and requirements. Manuscripts that have fulfilled to the journal's style and journal policy will be peer-reviewed. The peer review process can be broadly summarized into 9 steps, although these steps can vary slightly between journals. Explore what’s involved below.  

  1. Submission of Paper: The corresponding or submitting author must only submit the paper to the journal via an online system. 
  2. Editorial Office Assessment: The Review checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
  3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC): The EiC checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further. 
  4. Invitation to Reviewers: The handling editor sends invitations to two individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued.
  5. Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
  6. Review is Conducted: The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation of manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on the reviewer's comments).
  7. Journal Evaluated the Reviews: The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
  8. The Decision is Communicated: The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.
  9. Next Steps: If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

Step point number 6, is when 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. Rejected, the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.

Open Access Policy

Alauddin Law Development Journal (ALDEV) is an open-access journal that provides immediate, worldwide, barrier-free access to the full text of all published articles without charging readers or their institutions for access. Readers have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all articles in Alauddin Law Development Journal (ALDEV). 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.

Article Processing Charges (APCs) / Author Fees

This journal charges the following author fees:

Article Processing Charges (APCs): 0.00 (IDR) or 0.00 (USD)

Article Submission: 0.00 (IDR) or 0.00 (USD)

Article Publication: 1,000,000.00 (IDR) or 80.00 (USD)

Plagiarism Policy

  • Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are not allowed;
  • 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;
  • 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;
  • 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 20%), the board will reject the manuscript immediately.

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. 

Publication Ethics

Alauddin Law Development Journal (ALDEV) has high standards for expected ethical behavior by all parties involved in publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, and the publisher. ALDEV is a peer-reviewed journal published three times a year by the Law Science Department, Faculty of Sharia and Law, Universitas Islam Negeri Alauddin Makassar. It is available online as open access source as well as in print. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor-in-chief, the Editorial Board, the reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in ALDEV is an essential building block in developing a coherent and respected knowledge network. It directly reflects the quality of the authors' work and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles help and embody scientific methods. It is, therefore, essential to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor, the reviewer, the publisher, and the society. As the publisher of JDH takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously, it recognizes its ethical and other responsibilities. ALDEV is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

Publication decisions

The editors of ALDEV are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editors may be guided by the policies of the ALDEV editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making publication decisions.

Fair Play

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality
The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the author's express written consent.

Duties of Authors

1

Reporting Standards: 

 

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

2

Data Access and Retention: 

 

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide such data within a reasonable time.

3

Originality and Plagiarism: 

 

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.

4

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: 

 

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.

5

Acknowledgment of Sources:

 

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.

6

Authorship of the Paper:

 

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

7

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

 

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

8

Fundamental errors in published works:

 

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

9

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: 

 

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

 

 

Duties of Editors

1

Fair Play: 

 

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2

Confidentiality: 
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

3

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

4

Publication Decisions: 

 

The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 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.

5

Review of Manuscripts: 

 

The 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. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. The 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.

 

Duties of Reviewers

1

Contribution to Editorial Decisions:

 

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

2

Promptness: 

 

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process

3

Standards of Objectivity: 

 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

4

Confidentiality: 

 

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

5

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: 

 

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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.

6

Acknowledgment of Sources: 

 

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. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.