The publication protocol of Foundational Law Review: Theory & Praxis (FOLAR) is predicated on a rigorous, objective, and double-blind peer review mechanism. This process is designed to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record and to curate legal discourse that is both theoretically profound and practically relevant.

The review workflow operates as follows:

I. Preliminary Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Section Editor. This phase does not assess the scientific rigor in full but evaluates:

1. Scope Compliance: Whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s focus on legal philosophy, theory, and praxis.
2. Formatting & Standards: Adherence to the FOLAR Author Guidelines and citation style (Bluebook or Chicago).
3. Originality Verification: All submissions are screened using advanced plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin). Manuscripts exhibiting a similarity index exceeding 20% (excluding bibliography and direct statutes) are subject to immediate desk rejection.

Outcome: Manuscripts that fail this stage are rejected without external review. Those that pass are anonymized for the next stage.

II. Double-Blind Peer Review

FOLAR adheres to a strict Double-Blind Peer Review policy, wherein the identity of the author is concealed from the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is concealed from the author.

1. Reviewer Selection: The Editorial Board selects a minimum of two (2) independent experts based on their specific expertise in the manuscript’s subject matter (e.g., Constitutional Theory, Islamic Jurisprudence, Critical Legal Studies).
2. Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers are tasked with evaluating the manuscript based on the following metrics:
• Theoretical Depth: Does the paper engage substantially with existing jurisprudential scholarship?
• Argumentative Logic: Is the legal reasoning sound, coherent, and free from logical fallacies?
• Novelty: Does the work offer a new perspective, interpretation, or solution (Theory/Praxis)?
• Relevance: Is the topic significant to current legal discourse, particularly within the Global or Indonesian context?

III. Review Decision Categories

Reviewers provide their recommendations to the Editorial Board. Based on these reports, the Editor makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted in its current form, requiring only minor copy-editing.
• Revisions Required (Minor): The manuscript is provisionally accepted, contingent upon the author addressing specific, relatively minor issues raised by the reviewers.
• Resubmit for Review (Major Revisions): The manuscript has potential but requires significant restructuring, additional research, or substantial rewriting. The revised manuscript will undergo a second round of review (typically with the original reviewers).
• Decline Submission: The manuscript is flawed in its methodology, lacks sufficient theoretical grounding, or does not contribute significantly to the field.

IV. Timeline and Transparency

• Desk Review: 1–2 weeks from submission.
• Peer Review: 4–8 weeks per round.
• Final Decision: Communicated immediately upon receipt of all review reports.

The Editorial Board of FOLAR reserves the ultimate authority regarding the acceptance or rejection of any manuscript. In cases of conflicting reviewer recommendations (e.g., one acceptance, one rejection), the Editor-in-Chief may solicit a third opinion from a senior member of the Editorial Board to adjudicate.

V. Confidentiality

Throughout the review process, all submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers are strictly prohibited from discussing the manuscript or using its contents for their own research prior to publication.