Peer-Review Process

AKSEN Journal of Islam and Humanities (AJIH) Published by AKSEN (Akademika Semesta Nusantara)

This document details the peer-review model, procedures, criteria, and ethical standards that govern the evaluation of manuscripts submitted to AJIH.

1. Review Model

AJIH employs a double-blind peer review process:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s).
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewer(s).
  • All identifying information (names, affiliations, acknowledgments, self-citations that reveal identity) must be removed from the manuscript file prior to review; this is verified during editorial screening.

The editorial board may consider alternative models (e.g., open review) in the future; any change to this policy will be announced publicly on the journal website in advance.

2. Eligibility and Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Demonstrated subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscript's topic and method
  • A track record of scholarly publication or recognized standing in the relevant field
  • No conflict of interest with the author(s) (see Section 6)

Reviewers may be drawn from:

  • The journal's standing reviewer pool
  • The editorial board's advisory network
  • Suggestions made by authors at submission (subject to independent verification and editorial discretion; author-suggested reviewers are never used exclusively)

Each manuscript is typically assigned to at least two reviewers. A third reviewer may be invited if the first two reports diverge significantly in recommendation.

3. Reviewer Invitation and Response

  • Reviewers are invited by the handling editor via the submission system, with the manuscript's anonymized title and abstract provided at the invitation stage to allow an informed decision to accept or decline.
  • Invited reviewers are asked to respond within [board to specify, e.g., 3–5 days], indicating acceptance, decline, or a conflict of interest.
  • If a reviewer accepts but fails to submit a report within the agreed deadline, the handling editor will send a reminder and, if necessary, invite a replacement reviewer.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts against the following criteria, adapted as appropriate to the manuscript's disciplinary approach (textual/normative vs. empirical/social-scientific):

  1. Fit with Scope — Does the manuscript engage substantively with Islamic Studies or Muslim Societies as defined in the journal's Focus and Scope?
  2. Originality and Contribution — Does the manuscript offer a genuine contribution to existing scholarship, rather than restating established positions?
  3. Argumentation and Analysis — Is the central argument, textual analysis, or empirical finding coherent, well-supported, and logically developed?
  4. Engagement with Literature and Sources — Does the manuscript demonstrate adequate awareness of relevant primary sources and secondary literature, including recent scholarship?
  5. Methodological Soundness — For empirical work: is the method appropriate and properly executed? For textual/normative work: is the hermeneutical or analytical approach transparent and defensible?
  6. Structure and Clarity — Is the manuscript clearly organized and written, per the journal's structural guidelines?
  7. Ethical Compliance — Are sources, translations, and (where relevant) human-subjects research handled with appropriate care and attribution?

Reviewers provide both a narrative report (comments to the author and, optionally, confidential comments to the editor) and a recommendation.

5. Review Recommendations

Reviewers select one of the following recommendations, consistent with the categories used in the Article Publication Process:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The final editorial decision rests with the handling editor and/or Editor-in-Chief, who weighs all reviewer reports; reviewer recommendations are advisory, not binding.

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline an invitation, or disclose the conflict to the handling editor, if any of the following apply:

  • Recent (e.g., within the past 3 years) direct collaboration, co-authorship, or supervisory relationship with the author(s)
  • Personal or familial relationship with the author(s)
  • Institutional affiliation likely to compromise objectivity (same department or research unit)
  • Any financial or competing interest related to the manuscript's subject matter

Handling editors are likewise expected to recuse themselves from manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists, assigning the manuscript to another qualified editor.

7. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers may not share, discuss, or cite unpublished manuscript content without the authors' and editors' permission.
  • Reviewers may not use knowledge gained through the review process for their own advantage.
  • Review reports and reviewer identities are kept confidential and are not disclosed to authors or third parties, except in cases of suspected research misconduct where disclosure may be required for investigation.

8. Timeline

Step Target Duration
Reviewer invitation response 3–5 days
Review completion (per reviewer) 2–4 weeks
Handling editor synthesis of reports 1 week
Total (single review round) ~4–6 weeks

Figures above are indicative defaults common in humanities publishing, not verified statistics — the editorial board should confirm and publish its own actual targets.

9. Handling Divergent Reviews

  • If reviewer recommendations are broadly consistent, the handling editor issues a decision accordingly.
  • If recommendations diverge substantially (e.g., one reviewer recommends acceptance and another recommends rejection), the handling editor may:
    • Invite a third independent reviewer, or
    • Exercise independent editorial judgment after weighing both reports, with reasoning documented internally

10. Author Response and Rebuttal

  • Authors may submit a point-by-point response to reviewer comments alongside any revised manuscript.
  • If an author believes a review contains factual errors or is unfairly critical, they may raise this with the handling editor, who has discretion to seek clarification from the reviewer or arrange an additional independent review.

11. Appeals

  • Authors who wish to formally appeal a rejection decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within [board to specify, e.g., 2 weeks] of the decision, clearly stating the grounds for appeal (e.g., a specific factual or procedural error in the review process).
  • Appeals are not intended for cases where an author simply disagrees with a reviewer's scholarly judgment.
  • The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may consult an independent reviewer not previously involved before issuing a final decision.

12. Reviewer Recognition

  • AJIH acknowledges its reviewers' contributions, subject to reviewer consent, through mechanisms such as:
    • An annual published list of reviewers (without linking names to specific manuscripts)
    • Certificates of appreciation
    • Support for reviewer profiles on platforms such as Publons/Web of Science Reviewer Recognition (where applicable)

13. Ethical Standards

AJIH's peer-review process is conducted in line with internationally recognized standards of publication ethics, and the editorial board is encouraged to formally adopt and reference the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for peer reviewers as the basis of its detailed ethical expectations.

Notes for the editorial board:

  • All bracketed items [ ] require confirmation of your board's actual policy before publication.
  • Consider publishing a companion one-page "Reviewer Guidelines" document summarizing Sections 4–7 in a format easy for reviewers to reference quickly.
  • This document should be cross-referenced with the Article Publication Process and Publication Ethics documents to avoid inconsistency.