Peer Review

1. Peer Review Process

JEKSYAH: Islamic Economics Journal applies a double-blind peer review process to evaluate submitted manuscripts. Under this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This procedure aims to ensure an objective, fair, and independent assessment of scholarly manuscripts.

All manuscripts submitted to JEKSYAH undergo an initial editorial screening before being considered for external peer review. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are generally evaluated by two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

The review process assesses the manuscript's originality, relevance to the journal's focus and scope, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, academic contribution, and compliance with the journal's publication policies.

2. Overview of the Review Workflow

The manuscript review and publication process at JEKSYAH follows these sequential stages:

Manuscript Submission: The author submits the manuscript through the journal's online submission system in accordance with the Author Guidelines.
Initial Editorial Screening: The editor assesses the manuscript's suitability for the journal's focus and scope, similarity report using Turnitin, methodological quality, readability, and compliance with the journal's manuscript template.
Double-Blind Peer Review: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to two independent reviewers under a double-blind review system.
Reviewer Evaluation and Author Revision: Reviewers provide comments and recommendations. The author revises the manuscript in response to the reviewers' comments and submits a revised version.
Final Editorial Decision: The editor evaluates the reviewers' recommendations and the revised manuscript before deciding whether to accept, request further revisions, or reject the manuscript.
Copyediting and Publication: Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, proofreading, and final preparation before publication in the scheduled issue.

The overall process from submission to publication is estimated to take approximately four to five months, depending on reviewer availability, the number of review and revision rounds, author responsiveness, and editorial requirements.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic requirements.

The initial screening includes the following criteria:

Scope and relevance: Assessing whether the manuscript fits the journal's focus and scope.
Originality and similarity: Screening the manuscript using Turnitin, with a maximum similarity threshold of 25%, in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Policy.
Methodological and academic quality: Assessing the basic soundness of the research design, analysis, and scholarly contribution.
Language and presentation: Evaluating the readability, organization, and clarity of academic writing.
Submission requirements: Checking compliance with the Author Guidelines, manuscript template, and required submission information.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be rejected at the initial screening stage or returned to the authors for revision before further consideration.

A similarity score below 25% does not automatically establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism. The editorial team evaluates the similarity report and the nature of the identified textual matches before making a decision.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to two independent reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise.

During the review process, reviewers do not receive the authors' identifying information, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities. Authors and reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the review process.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and novelty of the research.
Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
Adequacy of the theoretical framework and literature review.
Appropriateness of the research methods and data analysis.
Validity and clarity of the findings and discussion.
Contribution to Islamic economics, Islamic finance, or related fields.
Quality of academic writing, organization, and references.
Compliance with relevant research and publication ethics.

Reviewers provide recommendations and constructive comments to help the editor make an informed decision and enable authors to improve their manuscripts.

5. Reviewers' Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial revision.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision.
Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is unsuitable for publication.

Reviewers' recommendations are advisory. The editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision and may request additional reviews when necessary.

6. Revision and Editorial Decision

Authors who are asked to revise their manuscripts must address the reviewers' comments and submit a revised version within the timeframe specified by the editor.

Authors should provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. If an author disagrees with a particular recommendation, the response should provide a clear academic justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation or assessed by the editor, depending on the nature of the revisions. The editor will then decide whether to accept the manuscript, request further revision, or reject it.

Acceptance is not guaranteed merely because a revised manuscript has been submitted. The final decision depends on whether the manuscript satisfies the journal's academic and editorial requirements.

7. Copyediting and Publication

Manuscripts accepted for publication undergo copyediting, proofreading, and final preparation in accordance with the journal's editorial standards. Authors may be asked to verify the accuracy of the final version before publication.

Accepted articles are published according to the journal's publication schedule. JEKSYAH publishes two issues annually, in May and September. Acceptance does not necessarily mean that an article will appear in the immediately following issue, as publication timing depends on editorial preparation and the publication schedule.

8. Review Timeline

JEKSYAH aims to conduct the editorial and peer review process efficiently while maintaining appropriate academic standards.

The estimated timelines are as follows:

Initial editorial screening: Approximately 1–3 weeks.
External peer review: Approximately 1–5 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.
Author revision: Within the timeframe specified in the editorial decision.
Final editorial assessment and publication preparation: Depending on the extent of revisions and the publication schedule.

The overall process from submission to publication is estimated to take approximately four to five months. These timeframes are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds, author responsiveness, and editorial requirements.

9. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Editors, reviewers, and authors must comply with the journal's Publication Ethics policy throughout the review process.

Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when their impartiality may be compromised.

Editors must manage submissions fairly and confidentially, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure that editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit rather than personal, institutional, or commercial considerations.

Authors must submit original work, acknowledge all relevant sources, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and ensure that their manuscripts comply with the journal's ethical requirements.

Concerns involving plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or other forms of research misconduct will be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Plagiarism Policy.

10. Editorial Independence and Appeals

The editor-in-chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of submitted manuscripts. This decision is informed by the reviewers' assessments, the manuscript's scholarly quality, its relevance to the journal, and compliance with editorial policies.

Editorial decisions must be made independently and must not be influenced by authors' personal characteristics, institutional affiliations, financial interests, or other inappropriate external pressures.

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may contact the editorial office through the journal's official contact information. Appeals should provide a clear explanation and relevant academic justification. The editor will consider the appeal in accordance with the journal's editorial policies. An appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.