Peer review process

Journal of Islamic Mubādalah applies a rigorous peer review process to ensure the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of every manuscript submitted to the journal. All research articles submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial screening followed by a Double Anonymous Peer Review process.

Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript is first evaluated by the Editorial Board to determine whether it complies with the journal’s aims and scope, author guidelines, publication ethics, originality requirements, academic contribution, methodological adequacy, quality of data or evidence, and manuscript format.

At this stage, the Editorial Board may reject a manuscript without external review if the manuscript is outside the scope of the journal, does not follow the author guidelines, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, contains serious methodological weaknesses, shows indications of ethical problems, or does not meet the basic standards required for peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent external reviewers who have relevant expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.

Type of Peer Review

Journal of Islamic Mubādalah uses a Double Anonymous Peer Review process. This means that the identity of the author is not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the author. The identities of both authors and reviewers are known only to the editor responsible for managing the review and editorial decision-making process.

Reviewers do not communicate directly with authors. All communication between reviewers and authors is mediated by the editor through the journal’s editorial system. This model ensures that the review process remains independent, objective, and professionally managed.

Selection of Reviewers

Peer reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, publication record, and relevance to the topic of the manuscript being reviewed. The journal prioritizes reviewers who have scholarly competence in Islamic studies, gender justice, mubādalah studies, Islamic family law, Islamic legal thought, social justice, or other relevant fields according to the subject of the manuscript.

The journal does not ask authors to recommend reviewers. This policy is applied to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest, inappropriate reviewer selection, and potential misconduct in the peer review process.

In assigning reviewers, the editor considers the reviewer’s field of expertise, previous research and publication experience, academic track record, and suitability to evaluate the manuscript. Bibliometric indicators, such as citations or h-index, may be considered as supporting information, but they are not used as the sole basis for reviewer selection.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript based on both substantial and technical aspects. The review may include, but is not limited to, the following criteria:

1. Relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal;

2. Originality, novelty, and scholarly contribution of the study;

3. Clarity of research problem, objectives, and argumentation;

4. Appropriateness of theory, method, data, evidence, and analysis;

5. Depth and coherence of discussion;

6. Accuracy and relevance of references;

7. Compliance with ethical standards in scholarly publication;

8. Clarity, structure, language quality, and consistency of manuscript formatting;

9. Overall contribution of the manuscript to the development of knowledge in the relevant field.

When supplementary materials are submitted as part of the manuscript and are relevant to the evaluation of the study, they may also be made available to reviewers and considered in the peer review process.

Editorial Decision

After the reviewers submit their reports, the editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. The final editorial decision is made by the assigned editor or the Editorial Board based on the reviewers’ reports, the quality of the manuscript, the author’s revisions, and the journal’s editorial standards.

The possible editorial decisions include:

1. Accepted;

2. Accepted with minor revisions;

3. Revisions required;

4. Resubmission for review;

5. Rejected.

If revision is required, the manuscript is returned to the author with comments and recommendations from the reviewers and/or editor. The author must revise the manuscript carefully and submit a revised version along with a response to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments.

The revised manuscript may be evaluated again by the editor and, when necessary, returned to the reviewers for further assessment. The editor then makes the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript.

Reviewer Independence and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must conduct the review objectively, confidentially, and ethically. Reviewers are expected to decline the review invitation if they have a conflict of interest, including personal, academic, institutional, financial, or professional relationships that may affect their objectivity.

The editor also considers potential conflicts of interest when assigning reviewers. The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity and independence of the peer review process.

Confidentiality of Review

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are not allowed to share, discuss, copy, cite, or use any part of the manuscript before publication without permission from the editor. Reviewer comments are used only for editorial decision-making and manuscript improvement.

The journal does not publish reviewer reports together with the articles. Reviewer identities remain anonymous to authors, and reviews are not signed or publicly disclosed.

Exceptions to Peer Review

Research articles are subject to the full peer review process described above. Non-research materials, such as editorials, forewords, announcements, or other non-scholarly content, may be handled through editorial review only. Such content, if published, will be clearly identified according to its article type.

If any published item follows a different review procedure from the journal’s standard peer review process, the journal will clearly indicate the type of review applied to that item.

Review Quality and Editorial Monitoring

The Editorial Board monitors the quality of peer review by assessing the relevance, depth, constructiveness, timeliness, and ethical quality of reviewer reports. Reviewers may be evaluated based on the substantial and technical quality of their comments. This monitoring process supports the journal’s commitment to maintaining fair, rigorous, transparent, and accountable peer review practices.

Journal of Islamic Mubādalah does not guarantee acceptance of any submitted manuscript. Acceptance is based solely on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, methodological soundness, compliance with publication ethics, the outcome of peer review, and the final editorial decision. The journal is committed to conducting peer review in a fair, independent, confidential, and academically responsible manner.