Initial Editorial Assessment

The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether a manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope and satisfies the required scholarly, technical, and administrative standards. This includes consideration of the relevance of the research question, originality, structure, presentation, completeness of supporting materials, research ethics, and compliance with submission requirements.

Submissions that are outside the journal's scope, contain serious ethical concerns, or do not meet essential scholarly standards may be declined without external peer review. Manuscripts suitable for further consideration proceed to review under the supervision of an assigned editor. An initial screening decision is not a guarantee of eventual acceptance.

External Double-Blind Peer Review

The handling editor normally invites at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject, methodology, and academic context. Reviewers are expected to assess the work fairly, confidentially, and without conflicts of interest. Their evaluation addresses the significance of the contribution, engagement with relevant scholarship, methodological appropriateness, validity of evidence, clarity of argument, and relevance to Islamic education.

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection and are encouraged to provide constructive comments that authors can address. Reviewer reports inform editorial decisions, but the final decision remains the responsibility of the journal's authorized editors. Reviewers must not disclose unpublished manuscripts or use their contents for purposes unrelated to the review.

Stages of the Review Process

1. Submission: the author submits a manuscript and accompanying information through the designated journal submission system.
2. Technical and editorial screening: the editorial team reviews scope, format, originality, completeness, and any research ethics concerns.
3. Reviewer assignment: the handling editor invites appropriate independent reviewers and oversees the double-blind review process.
4. Evaluation: reviewers provide assessments and recommendations based on scholarly and ethical criteria.
5. Editorial decision: the editor communicates acceptance, requested revisions, additional review, or rejection to the author.
6. Revision and reassessment: where required, authors respond to reviewer comments and submit revised manuscripts for further editorial or reviewer evaluation.
7. Final decision and publication preparation: accepted manuscripts proceed to editing, production, and publication in accordance with the journal's applicable procedures.

Revision and Editorial Decisions

When revisions are requested, authors should respond systematically to editorial and reviewer comments and identify the changes made to the manuscript. Editors assess whether the revisions adequately address the concerns raised. Revised work may be referred back to the original reviewers or to additional reviewers when the nature of the changes warrants further expert assessment.

Conflicting reviewer recommendations do not automatically determine the outcome. The handling editor may seek another opinion, request clarification, or conduct another round of review before reaching a decision. Acceptance is granted only after the manuscript satisfies the journal's scholarly and ethical standards; submission or review alone does not create an entitlement to publication.

Possible Editorial Decisions

Following assessment of reviewer reports and any revised manuscript, an editor may take one of several actions according to the journal's editorial procedures:

• Accept Submission: the manuscript meets the relevant publication criteria, subject to completion of editorial and production requirements.
• Revisions Required: the manuscript requires targeted changes and another editorial assessment.
• Resubmit for Review: substantial changes are needed before another reviewer evaluation.
• Decline Submission: the manuscript is not accepted for publication.

Reviewers provide recommendations rather than binding decisions. Editors may seek clarification or additional independent reports when recommendations conflict or a specialized issue requires further evaluation. The editor communicates the decision and, where appropriate, constructive grounds for revision or rejection through the journal's submission system.

Previously Reviewed or Referred Manuscripts

If a manuscript has previously been evaluated elsewhere and the author provides relevant reviewer reports lawfully, those reports may offer useful background, but they do not substitute automatically for the journal's own editorial assessment. The handling editor must consider the authenticity, relevance, confidentiality, and suitability of any previous assessments and may invite additional independent reviewers when necessary. Any final decision remains the responsibility of this journal's editorial team.

Editorial Independence, Confidentiality, and Publication Ethics

Editorial and peer-review decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal, without discrimination or financial influence. Editors and reviewers are expected to disclose conflicts of interest, preserve the confidentiality of unpublished work, and avoid using privileged information obtained through the review process.

Authors receive editorial decisions and relevant reviewer comments through the journal's established communication channels. Publication scheduling and preparation of accepted articles remain subject to editorial planning and production requirements; no fixed review duration or guaranteed publication date is implied by this process description.