Introduction
All manuscripts submitted to the Indonesian Journal of Islamic Law (IJIL) undergo a rigorous peer review process prior to publication to ensure scholarly quality, originality, and relevance.
Double-blind Peer Review
IJIL applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. All identifying information is removed from manuscripts before they are sent to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
® The double-blind system is applied to minimise potential bias and to ensure objective and independent evaluation.
Stages of Peer Review
IJIL implements a three-stage peer review process:
Stage 1: Editorial Office Review
Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial office to ensure compliance with the journal’s basic requirements. This assessment includes:
1. Similarity Check: Manuscripts are screened using plagiarism-detection software (e.g., Turnitin). Submissions exceeding the journal’s similarity threshold are rejected. Authors receive the similarity report and editorial decision.
2. Use of AI-Assisted Tools: Manuscripts are evaluated for the responsible and transparent use of AI-assisted tools. Undisclosed or unethical use of AI-generated content may result in rejection, in accordance with IJIL’s Generative AI Policy.
3. Scope and Relevance: Manuscripts are assessed for alignment with IJIL’s focus and scope. Submissions falling outside the scope may be rejected at this stage.
4. References and Currency: Editors assess whether references reflect recent and relevant scholarship.
5. Language and Presentation: Manuscripts are reviewed for clarity, structure, and readability. Submissions with serious language or structural deficiencies may be returned or rejected.
6. Proofreading: The manuscripts are checked for structure, organisation, and clarity. Minor errors may be corrected by the editorial office, but manuscripts with serious language problems will be returned to the author.
® Manuscripts failing to meet these requirements are rejected or returned for revision. This stage is normally completed within one week.
Stage 2: External Review (Double-Blind)
Manuscripts passing Stage 1 are reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected by the editor based on:
• Subject-matter expertise,
• Absence of conflicts of interest,,
• Institutional and geographical diversity.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on originality, scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and analytical depth. Reviewers recommend one of the following outcomes:
• Requires minor corrections
• Requires moderate revision
• Requires major revision
• Declined for publication (with reasons provided)
If reviewer reports are conflicting, a third reviewer is assigned. All comments are shared with the authors, keeping reviewer identities anonymous.
® This stage is usually completed within 1–4 weeks, depending on reviewer availability.
Stage 3: Editorial Decision
The editor considers the original manuscript, revised submission, and all reviewer reports. Based on the original manuscript, revised submission, and all reviewer reports, the editor may make one of the following decisions:
• Accepted as it is
• Accepted with minor correction
• Requires major corrections
• Resubmit for review (conditional rejection)
• Declined for publication
Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts more than once. In some cases, the editor may send revised manuscripts back to the original reviewer before acceptance.
® On average, the entire peer review process (all stages) is completed within 4–6 weeks.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts and peer review reports are treated as strictly confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose any information or use the content of submitted works for personal advantage.
Ethical Standards
IJIL adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers are expected to maintain objectivity, confidentiality, and integrity. Authors, reviewers, and editors must declare any potential conflicts of interest.
Right to Appeal
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned request. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial team and, where appropriate, by an independent reviewer.
Reviewer Recognition
IJIL recognises the contribution of peer reviewers through non-identifying acknowledgements, certificates, or recognised reviewer-credit platforms.
Peer Review Process Flow
The following figure illustrates detailed information on the flow of manuscript submission, from the author's initial submission to the editor's final acceptance.
The submission process can be summarised in the following steps:
1. Manuscript submission by the author (Route 1)
2. Manuscript checking and selection by the manager and editors (Route 2). Editors have the authority to directly accept, reject, or send the manuscript for review. A plagiarism examination using Turnitin is conducted on each manuscript before proceeding further.
3. The process of manuscript reviewing is conducted by reviewers (Routes 3–4).
4. The editor notifies the author of the manuscript's acceptance, revision, or rejection based on the reviewers' comments (Route 5).
5. Based on the reviewers' comments, the author revises the paper and submits it, adhering to the same process as the initial submission (Route 1).
6. If the reviewers are satisfied with the revisions, the editor sends a notification of acceptance (Route 6).
7. The galley proof and publishing process follow (Routes 7 and 8).
Focus and Scope Peer Review Process Peer Review Policy Publication Frequency Open Access Policy Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement Retraction and Correction Plagiarism Policy Generate AI Policy Archiving Policy Article Processing Charge
Author Guidelines Reviewer Guidelines Copyright And Licensing Privacy Statement Online Submissions Call For Reviewer/Editor
1.png)
