Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
El-Mizzi: Jurnal Ilmu Hadis applies a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution of all submitted manuscripts. The review process is designed to maintain editorial independence, research integrity, and transparency in scholarly publishing.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal must pass several editorial stages before publication. The editorial team evaluates each manuscript based on its relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, originality, methodological clarity, engagement with primary and secondary sources, analytical depth, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field of hadith studies or living hadith studies.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to assess whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s basic requirements. This stage includes checking the manuscript’s suitability with the focus and scope, completeness of manuscript structure, adherence to author guidelines, citation consistency, language quality, and compliance with the journal template.
Manuscripts that do not fit the focus and scope of El-Mizzi: Jurnal Ilmu Hadis, lack a clear research problem, do not use an appropriate research method, or fail to place hadith or living hadith as the main object of analysis may be rejected at this stage without external review.
2. Similarity and Ethical Compliance Check
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be checked for originality using similarity detection tools. The editorial team also examines potential ethical issues, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, redundant publication, citation manipulation, data fabrication, inappropriate use of artificial intelligence, and authorship problems.
Manuscripts with serious ethical violations will be rejected. When necessary, the editorial team may request clarification from the author before making an editorial decision.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review
El-Mizzi: Jurnal Ilmu Hadis uses a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Each eligible manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who have expertise relevant to the topic, method, and disciplinary focus of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic competence, publication record, subject expertise, and absence of conflict of interest. Reviewers are required to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
The relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s focus and scope.
The originality and significance of the research problem.
The clarity of research objectives and questions.
The appropriateness and transparency of the research method.
The accuracy and relevance of primary hadith sources.
The depth of analysis and interpretation.
The engagement with current and authoritative scholarly literature.
The consistency of citation and reference style.
The ethical treatment of data, sources, and research participants.
The contribution of the manuscript to hadith studies or living hadith studies.
The clarity, coherence, and academic quality of the writing.
5. Editorial Decision
Based on reviewers’ recommendations and the editorial assessment, the editor may make one of the following decisions:
Accepted: the manuscript is accepted for publication without substantial revision.
Minor Revision: the manuscript requires limited revisions before acceptance.
Major Revision: the manuscript requires substantial improvement and may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation.
Resubmit for Review: the manuscript has potential but requires extensive restructuring before it can be reconsidered.
Rejected: the manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards.
The final decision is made by the editorial team, taking into account reviewer reports, editorial judgment, journal standards, and the manuscript’s contribution to the field.
6. Revision Process
Authors who receive a revision decision must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. Authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.
If the author disagrees with a reviewer’s suggestion, the author must provide a clear academic justification. Failure to submit revisions within the specified period may result in the withdrawal of the manuscript from the editorial process.
7. Final Editorial Evaluation
After revision, the editor evaluates whether the author has adequately addressed the reviewers’ comments. For manuscripts requiring major revision, the revised version may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers when necessary.
The editor may request further revision if the manuscript still does not meet the journal’s academic standards.
8. Copyediting and Proofreading
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and proofreading. At this stage, the manuscript is checked for language accuracy, citation consistency, formatting, layout, metadata completeness, and technical publishing requirements.
Authors may be asked to review the proof before publication. Only minor corrections are allowed at the proofreading stage. Major changes to the content, argument, data, or authorship are not permitted after acceptance unless approved by the editor.
9. Conflict of Interest and Reviewer Confidentiality
Reviewers must decline the review invitation if they have a conflict of interest with the manuscript, the author, the research topic, or the institution involved. Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and may not use unpublished materials, data, or ideas from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
Editors also ensure that editorial decisions are not influenced by the authors’ institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, religion, academic rank, or personal background.
10. Review Timeline
The journal seeks to conduct the review process efficiently while maintaining scholarly quality. The duration of review may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and editorial workload. Authors can monitor the progress of their submission through the online journal system.
11. Editorial Independence
The peer-review process of El-Mizzi: Jurnal Ilmu Hadis is conducted independently and academically. Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s focus and scope.
The editor has the authority to reject manuscripts that fail to meet the journal’s standards, even when reviewers provide positive recommendations, and to request further evaluation when reviewer reports are insufficient, inconsistent, or inconclusive.
