Peer-Review Policy

Journal of Family Law and Culture (JFLC)

The entire manuscript review process in the Journal of Family Law and Culture (JFLC) is conducted using a single-blind peer review system managed by the Editorial Board. In this process, the identity of the reviewers is kept confidential from the authors, while reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities.

All appointed reviewers are required to adhere to the journal’s ethical standards and reviewer responsibilities.

General Review Requirements

  • Each submitted manuscript is reviewed by two (2) independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter.
  • The editor considers both reviewers’ recommendations in making the final decision. In cases of significant discrepancy, an additional reviewer may be appointed.
  • The review process generally takes approximately 4 weeks for one review round, depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required.
  • Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and publication record in relevant legal fields.

Review Evaluation Criteria

To ensure high scholarly standards in legal research and publication, reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Relevance and Clarity of Title: Does the title accurately reflect the legal issues and scope of the manuscript?
  • Introduction and Research Objectives: Are the background of the legal issue, problem formulation, and research objectives presented clearly and coherently?
  • Methodological Appropriateness:
    • For doctrinal or normative research: Are the legal approaches (statutory, case, conceptual, comparative, etc.) appropriate and systematically applied?
    • For empirical or socio-legal research: Are the research design, data sources, and analytical methods clearly explained and academically sound?
  • Depth of Legal Analysis: Are arguments supported by relevant legal authorities such as statutes, jurisprudence, treaties, and scholarly literature? Does the analysis demonstrate critical engagement with existing legal discourse?
  • Results and Discussion:
    • Are findings presented clearly and systematically?
    • Does the discussion adequately interpret findings in light of legal theory and previous research?
    • Does the analysis answer the research objectives?
    • Are references relevant, up-to-date, and authoritative?
  • Conclusion: Does the conclusion clearly respond to the research objectives? Does it demonstrate theoretical contribution and/or practical implications for legal development, policy, or judicial practice?
  • Originality and Contribution: Does the manuscript provide novelty and meaningful contribution to legal scholarship, particularly in the field of family law and cultural legal studies?

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accepted without revision
  • Accepted with minor revisions
  • Accepted with major revisions
  • Rejected

The Editorial Board reserves the right to make necessary editorial adjustments for clarity, consistency, and formatting without altering the substance of the manuscript.