Peer Review Process

The Islamic Studies and Education Journal (ISEJ) is committed to ensuring the quality, integrity, and scholarly value of all published articles through a rigorous and impartial double-blind peer review process. Each manuscript is evaluated for its originality, scientific merit, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's Aim & Scope.

Throughout the review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is screened by the Editorial Office to determine whether it:

• falls within the journal's Aim & Scope;
• complies with the Author Guidelines and submission requirements;
• demonstrates an appropriate standard of academic writing; and
• is suitable for external peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or declined without external review.

2. Similarity Screening

All manuscripts undergo similarity screening using recognized plagiarism detection software before being sent for peer review.

Manuscripts containing evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, or other forms of research misconduct will be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and may be rejected without further consideration.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review system in which neither authors nor reviewers are informed of each other's identities.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and confidential evaluations while declaring any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

4. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• originality and significance of the research;
• relevance to the journal's scope;
• methodological rigor and validity;
• clarity and organization of the manuscript;
• quality of data analysis and interpretation;
• adequacy of references and supporting literature; and
• contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

Reviewers provide recommendations to assist the Editor in reaching an editorial decision.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor may issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The Editor-in-Chief has the final responsibility for all publication decisions.

6. Revision Process

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts should submit:

• a revised version of the manuscript; and
• a detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Where necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

7. Final Decision and Production

A manuscript is accepted for publication only after it has satisfactorily addressed the reviewers' and editors' comments and fulfilled the journal's academic and ethical standards.

Accepted manuscripts proceed through copyediting, proofreading, typesetting, and final author approval before publication.

Estimated Peer Review Timeline

The journal is committed to providing an efficient editorial process while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review. The following timeline represents the estimated processing time under normal circumstances.

Editorial Stage	Estimated Time
Initial Editorial Assessment	5–7 days
Similarity Screening	Included in the initial assessment
Reviewer Invitation and Assignment	3–7 days
Double-Blind Peer Review	3–4 weeks
First Editorial Decision	Approximately 4–6 weeks after submission
Author Revision	1–4 weeks (depending on the decision)
Final Editorial Decision	1–2 weeks after receipt of the revised manuscript
Copyediting, Proofreading, and Typesetting	1–2 weeks
Online Publication	As soon as the production process is completed

Note: The above timeline is an estimate and may vary depending on reviewer availability, the quality of the submitted manuscript, the complexity of the review process, and the timeliness of author revisions.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Information obtained through the peer review process must not be shared with unauthorized parties or used for personal advantage.

Ethical Standards

Editors and reviewers are expected to perform their responsibilities with fairness, objectivity, confidentiality, and professionalism.

Individuals with actual or potential conflicts of interest should disclose them to the Editorial Office and decline the review assignment where appropriate.

The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers in the management of its peer review process.

Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant procedural error or misunderstanding may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Office.

Appeals will be considered objectively by the Editor and, where appropriate, may involve consultation with additional independent reviewers. The Editor's decision following the appeal shall be final.