Peer Review Process

 

JHIES implements a rigorous, transparent, and accountable peer review process to maintain academic standards and ensure the scholarly integrity of every published work. This policy is developed with reference to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and common practices among internationally indexed journals (Scopus/Web of Science).

1.Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the Open Journal System (OJS) in accordance with the author guidelines and the specified template. Manuscripts that do not meet the required format will be returned to the author before proceeding to the next stage of review.

2.Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

The editor conducts an initial screening to assess:

  • ❧The relevance of the topic to the journal's focus and scope;
  • ❧The completeness of the manuscript structure and compliance with the specified format;
  • ❧Similarity/plagiarism check results using plagiarism-detection software (such as Turnitin or iThenticate), with a maximum similarity threshold of 20% (excluding quotations and the bibliography);
  • ❧Compliance with publication ethics, including a declaration confirming the absence of redundant or duplicate publication.

Manuscripts that fail the desk review will be rejected at this stage (desk rejection), with written reasons provided to the author, typically within 1 to 2 weeks of submission.

3.Appointment of Peer Reviewers

The editor appoints at least two independent peer reviewers whose expertise matches the manuscript's subject area and who have no conflict of interest with the author, whether through institutional affiliation, personal relationship, or involvement in the same research. This journal applies a double-blind review system, in which the identities of the author and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the process to preserve the objectivity of the assessment. Reviewers are given a maximum of 3 to 4 weeks to complete their evaluation from the time the manuscript is received.

4.Evaluation by Peer Reviewers

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following academic criteria:

  • ❧Novelty and originality of the topic;
  • ❧Contribution to the field of Islamic law or sharia economics;
  • ❧Appropriateness of the methodology and research design;
  • ❧Depth of data analysis and interpretation of results;
  • ❧Sufficiency and relevance of references (with priority given to primary sources and reputable indexed journals from the last five years).

Based on the evaluation results, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  • ❧Accept without revision;
  • ❧Accept with minor revision;
  • ❧Accept with major revision;
  • ❧Reject.

In the event of a significant disagreement between reviewers (for example, one recommends acceptance while the other recommends rejection), the editor will appoint a third reviewer to act as an adjudicator before an editorial decision is made.

5.Editorial Decision

The editor objectively considers all reviewer comments and recommendations in reaching an initial editorial decision. The editor's decision is final with respect to the review process, but may still be reconsidered through the appeal mechanism (see point 8).

6.Author Revision

If revision is required, authors must:

  • ❧Revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' feedback;
  • ❧Include a response letter detailing, point by point, how each item of feedback has been addressed;
  • ❧Submit the revision within the specified deadline, generally 2 to 4 weeks for minor revisions and 4 to 6 weeks for major revisions.

Delays without confirmation from the author may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn.

7.Re-review (if required)

For major revisions, the revised manuscript is sent back to the original reviewers (or replacement reviewers if the original reviewers are unavailable) for a reassessment of the quality and adequacy of the revision.

8.Final Decision and Appeal Mechanism

The editor makes a final decision based on the results of the review and the quality of the revision: accept, request further revision, or reject. Authors who object to a rejection decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief accompanied by scholarly justification, which will be evaluated by a senior editor not involved in the initial decision.

9.Production and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which includes:

  • ❧Copyediting and language editing;
  • ❧Layout and formatting in accordance with the journal template;
  • ❧Proofreading by the author prior to final publication;
  • ❧Assignment of a DOI (Digital Object Identifier);
  • ❧Publication in online (and/or print) form according to the issue schedule.

Additional Provisions

Confidentiality. All parties involved (editors, reviewers, and editorial staff) are required to maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and must not use their content for personal gain prior to publication.

Overall Time Estimate. The average time from submission to an initial decision is 8 to 12 weeks, not including the time required for author revisions.

Publication Ethics. This journal follows COPE guidelines for handling allegations of ethical violations, including plagiarism, data fabrication, and unauthorized authorship, including the journal's right to issue a post-publication retraction where serious violations are found.