Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Maqashid: Jurnal Hukum Islam

All manuscripts submitted to this journal must align with its focus, scope, and author guidelines. Every submission undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to ensure scientific quality, objectivity, and academic integrity prior to publication.

1. Submission Requirements & Initial Screening

  • Manuscripts must fit the journal's scope and strictly adhere to the Author Guidelines.
  • All submissions must be original, unpublished, and not under consideration elsewhere.
  • The Editorial Team conducts pre-review screening for formatting compliance, ethical adherence, and text overlap using Turnitin, in accordance with the Plagiarism Policy.

2. Review Stages & Decision Categories

  1. Editorial Desk Evaluation: Checking scope, guidelines, similarity, and initial ethical compliance.
  2. Reviewer Assignment: Anonymized manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers.
  3. Double-Blind Peer Review: Reviewers evaluate scientific content, methodology, and conclusions without knowing author identities.
  4. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer reports, the Section Editor/Editor-in-Chief issues one of four formal decisions (detailed below).
  5. Author Revision: Authors address reviewer comments and submit revised drafts alongside a point-by-point response matrix within two weeks.
  6. Final Acceptance & Production: The Editor-in-Chief conducts final verification prior to layout and online publication.

Formal Editorial Decision Categories:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted as-is without requiring further modifications.
  • Revisions Required: Minor revisions are needed before publication; re-review is handled editorially.
  • Resubmit for Review: Substantial structural or methodological changes are required, followed by a second round of peer review.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected due to major flaws, unoriginality, or lack of scope fit.

3. Selection and Role of Reviewers

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two (2) independent reviewers possessing relevant expertise in Islamic legal studies.

  • Selection Criteria: Reviewers are appointed based on academic credentials, publication track record in Islamic law/jurisprudence, and subfield specialization.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline assignments if any personal, institutional, financial, or academic connection exists with the authors.
  • Confidentiality & Integrity: Reviewers must keep manuscript content confidential and deliver objective assessments within agreed timelines, in accordance with COPE standards in our Publication Ethics.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on standardized OJS review forms focusing on:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
  • Originality, novelty, and scientific contribution to Islamic jurisprudence.
  • Methodological rigor, analytical clarity, and sound conclusions.
  • Currency, relevance, and accuracy of citations and reference list.
  • Language quality, structural organization, and academic style.
  • Adherence to research and publication ethics (including human subject ethics and AI disclosures).

5. Timeline

  • Initial decision / Peer review outcome: Communicated within two (2) months of submission.
  • Author revision deadline: Revised manuscripts should be resubmitted within two (2) weeks.

6. Confidentiality

As detailed in our Publication Ethics, all manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers are strictly prohibited from sharing, discussing, or using unpublished research data for personal or external purposes.

7. Appeals and Complaints Procedure

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision (e.g., rejection) or wish to submit a complaint regarding the peer-review process may file a formal appeal following these steps:

  • Submission: Send a written appeal to [email protected] within 30 days of receiving the decision notice.
  • Requirements: Include the manuscript ID, title, a detailed point-by-point rebuttal responding to reviewer comments, and supporting academic evidence.
  • Review Process: The appeal is reviewed independently by an Editorial Board member who was not involved in the original decision.
  • Final Outcome: The Editor-in-Chief renders the final appeal decision in writing. Only one appeal per manuscript is permitted.