Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process in QISTH: Jurnal Studi dan Pemikiran Hukum Islam 

The Editor-in-Chief will assign the manuscript to the Managing Editor for further processing. The Managing Editor will then appoint at least two experts to review the submitted research article. All manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential to ensure compliance with academic standards. Articles will only be published if they receive approval from researchers with expertise in the relevant field, with a minimum of two reviewers per article.

QISTH: Jurnal Studi dan Pemikiran Hukum Islam upholds a rigorous yet efficient double-blind peer review process. The key stages of this process are as follows:

1. Initial Screening and Manuscript Selection

After passing a technical check, the editorial team will review the manuscript to assess its suitability for the journal’s scope and standards. If deemed appropriate, the manuscript will be forwarded to an Editor for further evaluation.

2. Review Process by Experts

If the manuscript meets the journal's criteria, the Editor will assign two reviewers who are experts in the field. Since peer review is a voluntary service, response times may vary. However, the Editor will regularly remind reviewers to ensure timely feedback. During this stage, the manuscript status will be marked as "Under Review."

3. Decision Based on Review Results

Once the Editor receives at least two completed reviews, the manuscript status will change to "Required Reviews Complete." The Editor will then evaluate the feedback before making a final decision. If the manuscript does not align with the journal’s scope or standards, the Editor will promptly notify the author of its rejection and may recommend a more suitable journal.

Peer Review for Referred Manuscripts

Editors of QISTH: Jurnal Studi dan Pemikiran Hukum Islam  will promptly decide whether to accept, request revisions, or reject referred manuscripts based on the reviews and editorial insights. If necessary, the Editor may seek additional reviewers. The Editor first evaluates whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's topics and writing guidelines. The entire review process follows a double-blind peer review system to uphold high academic standards.

Peer Review Workflow

The peer review process follows these steps:

  1. Manuscript Submission by the author.
  2. Initial Check and Selection by the journal manager and editors.
  3. Editor’s Preliminary Decision, including acceptance, rejection, or review assignment. Before proceeding further, each manuscript undergoes a plagiarism check using Turnitin.
  4. Review Process by at least two reviewers.
  5. Editorial Decision based on reviewer feedback, which may result in acceptance, revision requests, or rejection.
  6. Manuscript Revision by the author according to reviewer comments.
  7. Resubmission of the Revised Manuscript, following a process similar to the initial submission.
  8. If the reviewers are satisfied with the revision, the Editor notifies the author of acceptance.
  9. Galley Proof and Publishing Process.

Steps 1 to 5 constitute a full round of the peer review process. The Editor or Editorial Board will carefully consider all reviewer feedback before making a final decision. The possible outcomes are:

  • Accepted without Revisions: The journal will publish the paper in its original form.
  • Accepted with Minor Revisions: The journal will publish the paper after the author makes minor corrections within a specified timeframe.
  • Accepted with Major Revisions: The paper will be published only if the author implements substantial changes as suggested by the reviewers and editors.
  • Resubmission Required (Conditional Rejection): The journal may reconsider the paper after significant revisions and another round of decision-making.
  • Rejected: The journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it, even if major revisions are made.