Disruption Law Review (DILAR)  preview process uses  a double-blind review system.  First, manuscript are read by editorial members (upon the field of specialization) to meet the Disruption Law Review's criteria. Then, the manuscript will be sent to at least two anonymous reviewers. Sometimes (if required) a third peer-reviewer is also needed for further recommendation. Reviewers' comments are then sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses. Finally, the Editor shall inform the author of the results of the review as soon as possible, hopefully within  sixty days.

In reviewing submitted articles, reviewerwill refer to scoring guide given by Editorial Board. Scoring format includes originality of ideas, accuracy of used theories in analysing problems, and writing method. Editor will also run a plagiarism check using Ithenticate for the submitted articles before sending it to the reviewers. If a manuscript has over 25% of similarity, we will send back the article to the author to be revised for the plagiarised contents.

Detailed information about the flow of the manuscript submission to the acceptance by the editor is shown in the following figure:

The final decision of manuscript acceptance is made by Editor in Chief (together with Editorial Board if required) according to reviewers' critical comments. Jurnal Legalitas has five types of decisions:

• Accepted. The journal will publish the paper in its original form;
• Accepted by Minor Revisions, the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections (let authors revise with stipulated time);
• 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);
• Resubmit (conditional rejection), the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision-making after the authors make major changes;
• Rejected/Decline (outright rejection), the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions. Generally, on grounds of the outside of focus and scope, major technical description problems, lack of clarity of presentation.