Peer Review Process
JURNAL INDO-ISLAMIKA • EDITORIAL POLICY
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Jurnal Indo-Islamika
A transparent, independent, confidential, and academically rigorous peer-review process designed to ensure the quality, originality, methodological integrity, and scholarly contribution of research in Islamic studies and related interdisciplinary fields.
DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW INDEPENDENT REVIEWERS EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE
EDITORIAL COMMITMENT
Peer Review Process
Jurnal Indo-Islamika, published by the Graduate School of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Indonesia, is a peer-reviewed academic journal that has been published since 2011. The journal publishes two issues annually, in June and December, and has required manuscripts to be written in English since 2023.
The journal primarily publishes original research articles and considers a limited proportion of other scholarly contributions in accordance with its Focus and Scope and Article Types policies.
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment. Manuscripts that meet the journal's preliminary requirements are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process involving at least two independent reviewers with relevant scholarly expertise. An additional reviewer may be appointed when reviewers provide substantially different assessments or when further disciplinary expertise is required.
The review process ensures that published manuscripts demonstrate originality, methodological rigor, critical scholarly engagement, credible evidence, and a meaningful contribution to Islamic studies and relevant interdisciplinary scholarship.
The journal establishes a target of 6–10 weeks for the first editorial decision, calculated from manuscript submission. This target is subject to editorial screening, reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and other relevant circumstances.
Editorial decisions are based on the academic merit of each manuscript, the reviewers' evaluations, and the independent judgment of the responsible editorial team and Editorial Board.
REVIEW AT A GLANCE
Key Peer-Review Information
Double-Blind
Review Model
≥ 2
Independent Reviewers
6–10 Weeks
Target First Decision
Editorial Board
Final Decision Authority
ACADEMIC QUALITY STANDARDS
1. Criteria for Publication
Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Indo-Islamika must demonstrate academic relevance, originality, methodological rigor, critical analysis, and a meaningful contribution to Islamic studies and relevant interdisciplinary scholarship.
The following criteria guide editorial screening and peer-review evaluation.
| 01 |
Originality and NoveltyThe manuscript must demonstrate an identifiable original contribution to knowledge. Originality may be reflected in new empirical evidence, critical reinterpretation of Islamic texts or traditions, theoretical refinement, methodological innovation, or substantive engagement with unresolved scholarly debates. Simply changing the research location or object does not automatically constitute sufficient novelty. |
| 02 |
Methodological RigorThe research design, source selection, analytical framework, and interpretation must be appropriate to the research questions. Manuscripts should demonstrate transparent methods, coherent reasoning, critical engagement with relevant scholarship, and conclusions consistent with the available evidence. |
| 03 |
Scholarly Evidence and SignificanceThe manuscript must present credible and sufficient evidence to support its arguments and conclusions. Evidence may include empirical findings, textual analysis, historical documents, archival materials, interviews, field observations, or other appropriate research sources. Findings and arguments should advance scholarly understanding rather than merely reproduce existing descriptions or interpretations. |
| 04 |
Scope and Interdisciplinary RelevanceThe manuscript must be relevant to Jurnal Indo-Islamika's Focus and Scope, particularly its emphasis on Islamic thought, lived Islam, Muslim societies, religious authority, and contemporary religious transformations. The journal welcomes interdisciplinary approaches connecting Islamic studies with relevant social sciences and humanities, provided that the analytical framework is academically justified. |
Editorial Principle
Manuscripts are evaluated according to scholarly merit rather than the authors' institutional affiliation, personal identity, religious background, or adherence to a particular theological or interpretive position. Critical analysis, academic independence, and reasoned engagement with different scholarly perspectives are encouraged.
EDITORIAL WORKFLOW AND TIMELINE
2. Editorial Review Stages and Timeline
The Review Process
The editorial process consists of initial screening, reviewer selection, external peer review, editorial evaluation, author revision where necessary, reassessment, and final decision.
Manuscripts that pass initial screening are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers under the journal's double-blind peer-review system.
TARGET TIME TO FIRST EDITORIAL DECISION
6–10 Weeks
From manuscript submission to the first editorial decision, subject to reviewer availability, editorial assessment, and manuscript complexity.
Editorial Timeline Notice
The target of 6–10 weeks applies to the first editorial decision following manuscript submission, including the external review process where applicable. Initial screening decisions, including desk rejection, may be communicated earlier.
The indicated period represents a target processing time rather than a guaranteed deadline. Reviewer availability, additional assessments, manuscript complexity, ethical investigations, or unexpected editorial circumstances may extend the process.
The 6–10-week target does not necessarily represent the time required for final acceptance, completion of author revisions, production, or publication in a scheduled issue.
3. Editorial Decisions and Revision Policy
Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, relevance, originality, methodological adequacy, research integrity, and peer-review evaluations.
The following editorial outcomes may be communicated to authors:
Accept
The manuscript meets the journal's publication standards and may proceed to editorial production, subject to any necessary technical or copyediting corrections.
Minor Revision
Limited corrections, clarifications, or improvements are required before the manuscript can proceed to further consideration. Authors must address the specified editorial and reviewer comments.
Major Revision
Substantial improvements to the argument, methodology, analysis, discussion, or scholarly presentation are required. The revised manuscript may undergo additional editorial assessment or another round of peer review.
Reject
The manuscript does not satisfy the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards, or its contribution is insufficient for publication.
Where appropriate, the editorial team may request resubmission for another review round. Authors must provide substantive responses to the reviewers' concerns, but a revision invitation does not guarantee acceptance.
Final publication decisions remain the responsibility of the journal's authorized editorial leadership and Editorial Board.
4. Peer-Reviewer Selection
Reviewer selection is a fundamental component of the journal's editorial quality assurance process.
Reviewers are selected according to their disciplinary expertise, relevant publications, research experience, methodological competence, independence, and suitability for the subject of the manuscript.
For manuscripts involving Qur'anic studies, tafsīr, Islamic law, intellectual history, Islamic education, religious authority, or contemporary Muslim societies, reviewers should possess expertise relevant to the manuscript's principal disciplinary and methodological requirements.
The editorial team considers potential conflicts of interest before assigning a review. Reviewers should disclose any personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships that could compromise their independence.
Reviewers should decline invitations when they lack appropriate expertise, cannot provide an objective assessment, or are unable to complete the review within an appropriate period.
When a significant conflict of interest cannot be appropriately managed, the handling editor should appoint another qualified reviewer.
5. Writing the Review
Peer review serves two complementary purposes: supporting editorial decisions concerning publication suitability and providing constructive scholarly feedback that may improve the manuscript.
Reviewers must provide independent, objective, reasoned, evidence-based, and professionally expressed evaluations.
The review report should address the following dimensions where relevant:
Research Problem and Originality: Whether the manuscript identifies an important academic problem and demonstrates a meaningful original contribution.
Theoretical and Scholarly Engagement: Whether the study critically engages with relevant previous research, theoretical perspectives, and scholarly debates.
Methodological Rigor: Whether the research design, data sources, source selection procedures, analytical framework, and methods of interpretation are appropriate and transparent.
Evidence and Argumentation: Whether the findings, interpretations, and conclusions are adequately supported by credible empirical, historical, textual, or other scholarly evidence.
Analytical Depth: Whether the discussion demonstrates critical analysis rather than merely presenting descriptions, summarizing previous research, or reproducing established interpretations.
Scholarly Contribution: Whether the manuscript contributes meaningfully to Islamic studies or a related interdisciplinary field.
Academic Presentation: Whether the manuscript demonstrates coherent organization, clear academic English, accurate referencing, and appropriate presentation of research materials.
Reviewers should distinguish between essential scholarly weaknesses and matters of stylistic preference. Recommendations for revision should be specific, constructive, evidence-based, and reasonably actionable.
When recommending rejection, reviewers should explain the substantive reasons for their assessment, particularly when concerns relate to originality, methodological inadequacy, unsupported conclusions, or limited scholarly contribution.
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to their academic merit and should not require authors to adopt a particular theological, ideological, jurisprudential, or theoretical position without a specific scholarly justification.
6. Anonymity and Confidentiality
Jurnal Indo-Islamika implements a double-blind peer-review system, in which authors and reviewers do not receive each other's identities during the review process.
Authors are responsible for preparing anonymized manuscripts for review. Identifying information, including author names, institutional affiliations, personal acknowledgments, and identifying document metadata, should be removed from review files where necessary.
The editorial team coordinates manuscript handling to preserve reviewer anonymity and protect confidential editorial information.
Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors or disclose confidential information obtained through peer review.
Manuscripts, unpublished research findings, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence must not be shared with unauthorized individuals or used for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewer identities remain confidential in accordance with the journal's peer-review procedures, except where disclosure is independently authorized or required under applicable institutional or legal obligations.
7. Peer-Review Publication Policies
All submitted manuscripts undergo editorial screening before being considered for external peer review.
Each manuscript proceeding to external review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. A third reviewer may be appointed when reviewer assessments differ substantially or when additional specialist evaluation is required.
Peer-review reports are advisory assessments intended to inform editorial decisions and improve scholarly quality. Reviewers do not independently determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.
The editorial team may request minor or major revisions, additional clarification, or further peer review when necessary.
A request for revision does not constitute acceptance or guarantee publication.
The journal aims to communicate the first editorial decision within 6–10 weeks of manuscript submission. The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, editorial workload, and other relevant circumstances.
The journal maintains impartiality and consistency in editorial assessment. Manuscripts submitted by editors, Editorial Board members, or individuals closely associated with the journal must be handled through an appropriate independent editorial arrangement to avoid conflicts of interest.
Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they identify a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or unmanaged conflict of interest, in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.
The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection rests with the journal's authorized editorial leadership and Editorial Board.
8. Ethics and Security
Jurnal Indo-Islamika is committed to protecting the integrity, confidentiality, fairness, and independence of its peer-review process.
Editors and reviewers must observe principles of publication ethics, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and evaluate manuscripts without inappropriate personal, institutional, financial, or external influence.
Ethical concerns may include plagiarism, fabricated or falsified research data, inappropriate attribution, undisclosed competing interests, breaches of participant confidentiality, improper use of research materials, and other forms of research or publication misconduct.
Research involving sensitive religious identities, confidential institutional information, vulnerable communities, or human participants may require additional ethical consideration.
The editorial team may seek specialist advice where necessary to evaluate relevant ethical, legal, or methodological concerns.
Confidentiality and Responsible AI Use
Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of all manuscripts and editorial communications entrusted to them.
Under the journal's AI Policy, reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or reviewer comments to public AI systems that retain or use submitted material.
AI tools must not replace independent human scholarly evaluation. Limited language assistance in preparing reviewer comments may be permitted under the AI Policy, subject to appropriate disclosure to the handling editor and protection of confidential information.
Editors remain responsible for editorial judgment and publication decisions. Automated tools must not substitute for critical assessment and accountability by qualified human editors.
Integrity and Editorial Accountability
The journal's peer-review process promotes academic integrity, constructive scholarly criticism, procedural fairness, and confidence in published research. All participants must respect confidentiality, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and comply with the journal's publication policies.
Final responsibility for editorial decisions remains with the responsible editorial leadership and Editorial Board of Jurnal Indo-Islamika.
9. Author Communication and Appeals
Editorial correspondence, reviewer comments, revision requests, and manuscript decisions are communicated through the journal's online editorial system.
The corresponding author is responsible for monitoring notifications, coordinating revisions with co-authors, and ensuring timely responses to editorial requests.
Authors may contact the editorial office to request clarification concerning manuscript status, editorial procedures, or revision requirements.
Authors who believe that an editorial decision involves a material factual error, substantial misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or unmanaged conflict of interest may submit a reasoned appeal through the journal's official communication channels.
Appeals are evaluated according to the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy. Disagreement with a reviewer's scholarly opinion alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.
The editorial team is committed to responding to legitimate procedural concerns through fair, documented, and transparent processes, subject to appropriate confidentiality requirements.
FURTHER INFORMATION
Related Editorial Policies
For more detailed information about manuscript preparation, editorial procedures, research integrity, and author responsibilities, please consult the journal's official policies.
→ Author Guidelines → Plagiarism Policy → AI Policy → Conflict of Interest Policy → Complaints and Appeals Policy → Publication Ethics
Editorial Contact
Questions concerning the peer-review process, review timeline, editorial decisions, or manuscript handling may be directed to the journal through its official communication channels.
Email: indoislamika@uinjkt.ac.id
Contact the Editorial Office ↗JURNAL INDO-ISLAMIKA
Graduate School, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
P-ISSN 2088-9445 | E-ISSN 2723-1135
Independent Review • Academic Integrity • Scholarly Excellence
