Review Process Policy

Purpose and Scope

This policy describes how submitted manuscripts are assessed for relevance to Islamic education, originality, methodological and analytical rigor, scholarly contribution, reporting quality, and research and publication ethics. Its objective is to support fair, independent, constructive, confidential, and accountable editorial decisions.

Editorial and Peer-Review Workflow

1. Online Submission and Initial Screening

Authors submit manuscripts via the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The editorial team checks completeness, author-guideline compliance, suitability to the journal's objectives and scope, originality and similarity concerns, manuscript anonymization, and relevant ethics declarations. Authors may be asked to correct technical deficiencies. Submissions lacking sufficient academic merit or falling outside the journal's scope may be rejected without external review.

2. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Manuscripts passing screening are assigned to two reviewers with relevant scholarly expertise. Reviewers are expected to exercise independent judgment and disclose any financial, institutional, professional, personal, or other conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment. A reviewer unable to provide an impartial assessment must decline or notify the editor. The editorial team handles reviewer invitations, replacement, and any additional reviews considered necessary.

3. Double-Blind Review and Confidentiality

Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are concealed from reviewers. Authors must submit appropriately anonymized manuscripts. Editors and reviewers must keep submissions, associated data, and evaluation correspondence confidential. Reviews are confidential editorial communications and are not routinely published alongside articles. Reviewers must not use unpublished manuscript content for personal benefit or upload confidential material to generative AI systems, consistent with the journal's AI policy.

4. Evaluation Criteria

• Fit with the journal's objectives and scope.
• Originality, relevance, and contribution to Islamic educational scholarship.
• Clarity of the research problem, objectives, and theoretical framework.
• Appropriateness and transparency of research design, methods, data, and analysis.
• Logical consistency of findings, discussion, conclusions, and acknowledged limitations.
• Ethical conduct, appropriate citations, and responsible reporting.
• Clarity of academic writing and adherence to manuscript requirements.

5. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Their recommendations are advisory and do not constitute an automatic acceptance or rejection. The editorial board evaluates the reviews and manuscript evidence and communicates the editorial decision through OJS. When reviews are substantially inconsistent, the editor may seek an additional expert opinion.

6. Author Revision and Reassessment

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how reviewer comments were addressed, or providing a reasoned justification for any suggestions not adopted. The journal's published peer-review description specifies one week for minor revisions and three weeks for major revisions. The operative due date will be stated in the editor's OJS decision letter; any justified extension must be approved by the editorial office. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers, particularly when substantive changes require reassessment.

7. Final Decision and Production

Editors assess whether required revisions and ethical concerns have been satisfactorily addressed and make the final decision. Acceptance is never guaranteed, even after a revision round. Accepted manuscripts enter copyediting, proofreading, layout, and author proof-confirmation processes. Production changes should be limited to authorized corrections and must not compromise the scholarly record.

Review Timeframes and Delays

The journal's existing peer-review description sets an indicative review period of three weeks. Actual duration may differ according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and additional assessments. These timeframes are targets, not promises of acceptance or guaranteed processing. Where material delays occur, editors should inform the authors and explain the available options.

Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Concerns

Editors and reviewers must disclose circumstances that could compromise impartiality and recuse themselves where appropriate. Editors handle concerns about plagiarism, duplicate submission, manipulated data, improper authorship, peer-review manipulation, or other suspected misconduct in accordance with journal policies and relevant COPE guidance. Allegations are assessed fairly, with appropriate confidentiality and an opportunity for involved parties to respond. The journal may pause consideration while serious concerns are investigated.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal or complaint to the editorial office through the journal's official contact channels, identifying the submission and the specific basis for the request. Appeals are assessed on substantive procedural or scholarly grounds, not merely disagreement with the outcome. Where appropriate, an editor without a conflict of interest may review the case or consult an independent expert. Filing an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Transparency and Special Cases

The double-blind procedure applies to scholarly research manuscripts handled through the journal's regular review workflow. Any content not subjected to external peer review should be clearly identified as such and must not be represented as peer reviewed. Supplementary materials may be examined to the extent necessary to evaluate claims, methods, or data. Editors retain responsibility for appropriate review arrangements for submissions involving editorial-board members or other potentially conflicted parties.

Reference framework: COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME, Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, especially the principle on transparent peer review procedures. Read the principles.