The Journal of Constitutional Change follows the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applies the COPE flowcharts when handling allegations of misconduct. This statement sets out what the Journal expects of editors, reviewers and authors, and what they may expect of the Journal. It is binding on everyone involved in the publication process, including guest editors of symposia.
Manuscripts must be original and must not be under consideration elsewhere. All submissions are screened for similarity on receipt using [nama perangkat, mis. Turnitin]. The Journal does not operate a fixed percentage threshold: a similarity index is a prompt for editorial reading, not a verdict, and an article that quotes constitutional texts extensively will legitimately show a high score while a single unattributed paragraph of another scholar's argument is misconduct at any score.
Reuse of an author's own earlier work must be disclosed and appropriately cited. Translation is not originality. An article previously published in Indonesian, or in any other language, is a prior publication; submitting a translation of it as a new work is duplicate publication unless the earlier version is disclosed at submission and the editors agree in advance that the new version makes a distinct contribution to a different scholarly audience. Where such a translation is published, the earlier version is cited in the first footnote.
Authorship is limited to those who have made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of its material; who have drafted or critically revised it; who have approved the version submitted; and who agree to be accountable for it. All four conditions must be met. Contributions that do not meet them are recognised in the acknowledgements.
The Journal requires a CRediT contributor statement for every multi-author manuscript. It does not permit honorary, gift, guest or ghost authorship, including the inclusion of a supervisor, head of department or funder who did not contribute. Any change to the authorship of a submitted manuscript requires the written agreement of all authors, including any to be removed, and must be explained to the editors.
Scholars of constitutional change are frequently participants in it. Authors must disclose any role, current or within the preceding five years, in the constitutional change analysed in the manuscript, including service as a drafter or adviser to a drafting body; counsel, party, intervener or expert witness in related litigation; judicial or quasi-judicial office; membership of a constitutional commission or review body; office in a political party, government or legislature; and paid or unpaid advocacy for an organisation with a position on the matter.
Such engagement is often what makes a contribution valuable, and is never a ground for rejection. It is published as a note to the manuscript so that readers can weigh the argument with knowledge of the author's standpoint. Concealment, by contrast, is treated as a serious breach of publication ethics.
All sources of financial support must be declared, with grant numbers where applicable, together with any relationship that a reasonable reader might consider capable of influencing the work. Authors must also state whether any funder had a right of review over the manuscript; the Journal will not publish work subject to a funder's veto.
Authors are responsible for the accuracy of every constitutional provision, judgment, statute and drafting record cited, for the fidelity of translations, and for the fair characterisation of sources with which they disagree. A material misstatement of the law of a jurisdiction, once established, is corrected by published erratum; a pattern of such misstatements is treated as a question of research integrity rather than of style.
Constitutional-change research increasingly involves interviews with judges, drafters, officials, litigants and activists. Where a manuscript relies on such material, authors must confirm that the research was conducted with the informed consent of participants and, where required by the author's institution or jurisdiction, with the approval of a research ethics committee, identified by name and reference number. Where participants may be exposed to professional or personal risk, authors must explain the steps taken to protect them, and the editors may require further anonymisation as a condition of publication.
Authors of empirical work must make available, at submission, the data and code necessary to evaluate their findings, and are encouraged to deposit them in a public repository with a DOI upon publication. Where data cannot be shared — because participants would be identifiable or endangered, or because access was granted on conditions — the manuscript states this and explains the restriction. Coding of constitutional texts, amendment events or judicial decisions should be accompanied by the codebook.
Posting a manuscript to a preprint or working-paper server, including SSRN, an institutional repository or a conference archive, is welcomed and does not prejudice consideration. Authors disclose the posting at submission and, on publication, update the posted version with the citation, DOI and licence of the published article.
Scholarship on constitutional erosion is sometimes written by people who are not safe to write it. In exceptional and documented circumstances, the Journal may publish an article under a pseudonym, or without institutional affiliation, where full attribution would expose the author or others to a credible risk of prosecution, dismissal, violence or other serious harm.
Such a request is decided by the Editor-in-Chief together with one member of the editorial board who is independent of the jurisdiction concerned. The author's true identity and affiliation are verified before acceptance, the ordinary requirements of peer review, disclosure and accountability apply in full, and the article carries a note stating that the author's identity is known to the editors and withheld for reasons of safety. The identifying record is held by a single named custodian in encrypted form, separately from the submission system; it is accessible to no one else; it is destroyed two years after publication unless the author asks for it to be kept; and where the Journal is lawfully compelled to disclose it, the author is notified as far in advance as the law permits. Authors should weigh that last limitation for themselves: no journal can promise more protection than the jurisdiction in which it operates allows. The Journal will not use this procedure to shield an author from scholarly criticism, from a conflict of interest, or from the ordinary consequences of publishing a contested argument.
The Journal does not accept manuscripts produced or brokered by paper mills, does not permit the sale, purchase or transfer of authorship, and does not tolerate citation manipulation. Editors and reviewers will not request that authors cite the Journal, their own work, or any particular source in order to improve a metric; authors approached with such a request are asked to report it to the Editor-in-Chief. Coordinated citation exchange between authors, journals or institutions is treated as misconduct. The Journal levies no charge of any kind and therefore has no financial incentive to accept, which is the structural protection on which readers may most reliably depend.
The version of record is permanent and is not silently altered. Where correction is required, the Journal publishes, with its own DOI and a link from the original article:
Retraction is a correction of the scholarly record, not a punishment, and the Journal states expressly when a retraction follows honest error.
The Journal will not withdraw, alter or de-index published scholarship because an institution, government or individual objects to its conclusions; the remedy for disputed argument is a Reply. Content is removed or redacted only where the Journal is bound by a court order of competent jurisdiction, or where publication would expose a named person to a serious risk of harm, or where the material infringes a third party's rights. In any such case the Journal publishes a notice in place of the material stating what was removed and on whose authority, so far as it is lawful to do so, retains the DOI, and informs the authors. Requests to remove content should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief in writing and must identify the specific material and the legal basis relied upon.
A scholar, institution or public body whose position or conduct has been criticised in the Journal may submit a Reply. Replies are peer reviewed against the same standards as other content, are published without charge, and the author of the original article is offered a rejoinder published in the same issue or, where the review timetable does not allow it, in the next. The Journal does not remove or amend published criticism in response to institutional pressure; it answers argument with argument, in public.
Complaints about editorial process, conduct or published content should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief at [surel], and are acknowledged within seven days. Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it is directed to the chair of the editorial board, whose contact details appear on the Editorial Team page.
Allegations of misconduct are investigated under the COPE flowcharts. The author or reviewer concerned is informed of the substance of the allegation and given a reasonable opportunity to respond before any conclusion is reached; the process is confidential while it is under way; and where an allegation is not upheld, the Journal says so to everyone who was told of it. Where misconduct is established, the Journal may reject or retract the manuscript, inform the author's institution, and decline submissions from the author for a stated period not exceeding three years. Any such measure is taken only after written notice, an opportunity to respond and a right of appeal to the editorial board, is recorded for no longer than the period it covers, and is then deleted. The Journal applies COPE guidance throughout; where a matter cannot be resolved between the parties it may be referred to the institution of the person concerned, and the Journal will state on its Editorial Team page if and when it becomes a COPE member.
The Journal carries no advertising, accepts no sponsored content, publishes no supplements funded by an interested party, and engages in no direct marketing. No commercial or institutional relationship affects editorial decisions.
| ..:: MAIN MENU ::.. |
| Focus & Scope |
| Peer Review Process |
| AI Tool Policy |
| Publication Ethics |
| Article Processing Charge |
| Editorial Team |
| Peer Reviewers |
| Copyright |
| Open Access Policy |
| Author Guidelines |
| Template |
| ..:: REFERENCE TOOLS ::.. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| ..:: CITATION ANALYSIS ::.. |
| Scopus Citedness |
| ..:: IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ::.. |
 |
