Reviewer Guidelines

A. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally.
  2. Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
  3. Declare any potential conflicts of interest.
  4. Provide constructive feedback aimed at improving manuscript quality.
  5. Assess originality, scientific contribution, methodological rigor, and scholarly significance.
  6. Submit reviews within the specified timeframe.
  7. Refrain from using unpublished materials for personal research purposes.

B. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria.

1. Relevance to the Journal’s Focus and Scope

Evaluate whether the manuscript aligns with the aims and scope of the Journal Discrimination and Injustice

Indicators:

  • Discrimination and Injustice in Southeast Asia.
  • Racial and Ethnic Discrimination.
  • Religious and Belief Discrimination.
  • Gender Inequality and Sexual Orientation Discrimination.
  • Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities.
  • Economic Injustice.
  • Legal Injustice.
  • Marginalization of Indigenous and Minority Communities.
  • Stereotypes, Stigma, and Power Relations.

2. Title Quality

Assess whether the title:

  • Reflects the manuscript content accurately.
  • Is concise and informative.
  • Represents the formal object, material object, and contextual setting.
  • Avoids unnecessary abbreviations.
  • Demonstrates scholarly focus and clarity.

3. Abstract and Keywords

Assess whether the abstract clearly presents:

  • Research problem
  • Research objective
  • Methodology
  • Major findings
  • Conclusion and implications

Keywords should:

  • Reflect the core concepts of the study.
  • Support indexing and discoverability.
  • Be specific and academically relevant.

4. Introduction

Reviewers are expected to evaluate whether the Introduction section:

  1. Clearly presents the research issue or phenomenon within a relevant context and demonstrates its scholarly significance.
  2. Describes the specific phenomenon or case under investigation, supported by adequate empirical evidence or data.
  3. Clearly identifies the research problem by demonstrating the gap between the ideal condition (das sollen) and the actual condition (das sein).
  4. Explains the urgency and significance of the study.
  5. Reviews relevant previous studies and identifies the existing research gap.
  6. Explicitly articulates the novelty and scholarly contribution of the study.
  7. Clearly formulates the research objectives or research questions.
  8. Provides a strong academic justification for why the study is necessary and worthy of investigation.

5. Methodology

Assess the methodological rigor and transparency.

Qualitative Research

Review whether:

  • Research design is appropriate.
  • Data sources are clearly identified.
  • Data collection procedures are explained.
  • Analytical framework is coherent.
  • Trustworthiness and validity are demonstrated.

Quantitative Research

Review whether:

  • Research design is appropriate.
  • Variables are clearly defined.
  • Sampling procedures are justified.
  • Statistical analyses are correctly applied.
  • Findings are valid and reliable.

Conceptual or Library Research

Review whether:

  • Sources are authoritative.
  • Analytical framework is explicit.
  • Argumentation is systematic and critical.

6. Findings / Results

Assess whether findings:

  • Directly address research questions.
  • Are clearly presented.
  • Are supported by sufficient evidence.
  • Utilize tables, figures, or data appropriately.
  • Demonstrate analytical depth.

7. Discussion and Analysis

This section carries the greatest weight in the evaluation.

Review whether the discussion:

  • Interprets findings critically.
  • Engages relevant theories.
  • Integrates recent scholarly literature.
  • Demonstrates analytical sophistication.
  • Explains agreements, contradictions, and implications.
  • Advances scholarly understanding.
  • Contributes to Islamic and Mubādalah studies.

8. Originality and Scholarly Contribution

Assess whether the manuscript offers:

Theoretical Contribution

  • New concepts
  • New interpretations
  • New analytical frameworks

Empirical Contribution

  • New evidence
  • New cases
  • New datasets

Practical Contribution

  • Policy implications
  • Social impact
  • Educational relevance

9. Conclusion

Assess whether the conclusion:

  • Answers the research questions.
  • Reflects the findings and discussion.
  • Avoids merely repeating previous sections.
  • Highlights key contributions.
  • Identifies implications and future directions.

10. References and Citation Quality

Evaluate whether references:

  • Follow APA Style consistently.
  • Are relevant and scholarly.
  • Include recent publications.
  • Consist predominantly of primary sources.
  • Include DOI or stable URLs where available.

Minimum expectation:

  • ≥ 80% scholarly journal sources.
  • ≥ 80% published within the last five years.

C. Additional Assessment Criteria

Language Quality

Assess:

  • Academic writing quality
  • Clarity and coherence
  • Logical flow
  • Grammar and readability
  • Terminological consistency

Research Ethics

Assess whether the manuscript demonstrates:

  • Ethical data collection
  • Appropriate consent procedures (if applicable)
  • Respect for participants
  • Academic honesty

D. Recommendation to the Editor

Please select one recommendation:

Accept

The manuscript meets publication standards and requires only minor editorial adjustments.

Minor Revisions

The manuscript is publishable after minor improvements.

Major Revisions

The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revision before reconsideration.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript requires fundamental restructuring and should undergo a new review process after substantial revision.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

E. Comments to Authors

Reviewers are encouraged to provide comments under the following headings:

Major Comments

(Scientific contribution, theory, methodology, analysis, novelty)

........................................................................

........................................................................

Minor Comments

(Language, formatting, references, technical issues)

........................................................................

........................................................................