Peer-Review Process

AKSEN Journal of Contemporary Islamic Law (AJCIL)

This document describes the peer review policy and workflow for AJCIL, consistent with standard practices for scholarly legal and social science journals.

1. Review Model

AJCIL uses a double-blind peer review process: reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s), and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This is intended to reduce bias and protect the integrity of the evaluation.

  • Author-identifying information is removed from the manuscript prior to review (see Author Guidelines, Section 9).
  • Reviewers are asked not to attempt to identify authors and to disclose to the editor if they inadvertently do so or suspect a conflict of interest.

2. Stages of Review

Stage Description Responsible Party Target Duration*
1. Initial Submission Check Verify scope fit, formatting compliance, completeness, and plagiarism screening Editorial/Managing Editor 3–7 days
2. Editor Desk Review Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor assesses suitability, originality, and contribution before assigning reviewers Editor-in-Chief / Section Editor 5–7 days
3. Reviewer Assignment At least two (2) qualified reviewers are invited per manuscript Section Editor 3–5 days
4. Peer Review Reviewers evaluate the manuscript against the criteria in Section 5 Reviewers 3–4 weeks
5. Editorial Decision Editor synthesizes reviewer reports and issues a decision Editor-in-Chief / Section Editor 1–2 weeks
6. Author Revision (if applicable) Author responds to reviewer comments with a revised manuscript and point-by-point response letter Author(s) 2–4 weeks
7. Re-review (if applicable) Original or new reviewers assess the revised manuscript Reviewers / Editor 1–2 weeks
8. Final Decision Accept, reject, or further revision Editor-in-Chief —

*Target durations are indicative benchmarks the editorial board should confirm and publish; actual timelines may vary by manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.

3. Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Demonstrated subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscript (Islamic law, comparative law, a relevant jurisdiction, or an intersecting discipline named in the manuscript)
  • No conflict of interest with the author(s) (see Section 7)
  • A track record of scholarly publication or equivalent professional expertise in the relevant field
  • Willingness and availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe

The journal maintains a reviewer database, updated periodically, and may also invite ad hoc reviewers suggested by the editorial board or (subject to independent verification) by authors.

4. Number of Reviewers and Decision Thresholds

  • A minimum of two independent reviewers is required for a decision.
  • If the two reviews substantially disagree (e.g., one recommends acceptance, the other rejection), the editor will invite a third reviewer to help resolve the disagreement, or the editor may render an independent decision with justification recorded in the editorial file.
  • The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority over the publication decision; reviewer recommendations are advisory, not binding.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts on the following dimensions (a structured reviewer form should operationalize these into a scoring rubric):

  1. Relevance and Fit — alignment with the journal's Aims, Scope, and Focus
  2. Originality and Contribution — novelty of argument, analysis, or evidence; contribution to existing scholarship
  3. Rigor of Legal/Doctrinal Analysis — accuracy and depth of engagement with primary Islamic legal sources and/or positive law
  4. Methodological Soundness — appropriateness and execution of the stated method (doctrinal, comparative, empirical, socio-legal)
  5. Structure and Clarity — logical organization, clarity of argument, and quality of writing
  6. Engagement with Literature — adequate and critical engagement with relevant existing scholarship
  7. Referencing Accuracy — correct and consistent application of the required citation style (CMOS 17th, Notes-Bibliography)
  8. Ethical Compliance — absence of plagiarism, proper attribution, and (where applicable) appropriate handling of human-subjects data

6. Review Report and Decision Categories

Each reviewer submits a written report addressing the criteria above, along with a recommendation in one of the following categories:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required (subject to re-review)
  • Reject

Reviewer comments intended for the author should be constructive, specific, and professional. Reviewers may additionally submit confidential comments to the editor only.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline or disclose potential conflicts of interest, including but not limited to:

  • Recent collaboration, co-authorship, or supervisory relationship with the author(s)
  • Institutional affiliation that could bias judgment
  • Personal or financial interest in the outcome
  • Direct competition with the author's line of research

Editors with a conflict of interest regarding a submitted manuscript (e.g., their own submission, a close colleague's submission) must recuse themselves from handling that manuscript, which is reassigned to another editor.

8. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, cite, or use unpublished material from a manuscript under review without the authors' explicit permission.
  • Reviewers must not retain copies of the manuscript after the review process concludes, other than as required for record-keeping consistent with the journal's data retention practices.

9. Reviewer Anonymity and Recognition

  • Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors unless a reviewer explicitly opts to sign their review.
  • The journal may acknowledge reviewers collectively (e.g., in an annual reviewer list) with their consent, without attributing specific reviews to specific individuals.

10. Appeals Process

  • Authors who believe a decision was based on a factual error, misunderstanding of the manuscript, or a procedural irregularity may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within [placeholder: e.g., 30 days] of the decision.
  • Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult an independent reviewer or an editorial board member not previously involved in the manuscript's handling.
  • The outcome of an appeal is final.

11. Handling of Suspected Misconduct

If plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or other research/publication misconduct is suspected at any stage of review:

  • The review process is paused pending investigation.
  • The editorial board follows a documented misconduct investigation procedure, consistent with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which many journals in this field adopt as a reference framework for such procedures. [Note: if AJCIL intends to formally adopt COPE guidelines, this should be confirmed and cited directly from cope.org rather than paraphrased secondhand, since COPE issues periodically updated flowcharts and guidance documents.]
  • Corresponding authors and, where relevant, their institutions may be contacted as part of the investigation.

12. Editorial Independence

Editorial and peer-review decisions are based solely on the manuscript's academic merit and fit with the journal's scope, independent of the author's nationality, institutional affiliation, religion, political belief, gender, or other personal characteristics, and independent of any commercial consideration.