Peer Review Process

Manuscript Review and Publication Process

Arba: Jurnal Studi Keislaman implements a rigorous and transparent peer-review system to ensure academic quality, originality, and ethical publication standards.

Manuscript Submission

The author must submit all manuscripts via the Arba: Jurnal Studi Keislaman Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. In principle, manuscripts sent via email or other channels will not be processed as regular submissions, except under specific administrative circumstances determined by the journal. Upon submission, authors are required to provide all necessary information and documents, including the manuscript title; names and affiliations of all authors; email addresses and contact details; abstract and keywords; article metadata; reference list; statements regarding originality, conflicts of interest, and funding sources (where applicable); the manuscript file formatted according to the journal template; and any additional documents if required. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the submitted manuscript is an original work that has not been previously published and is not currently under review by another journal. Authors must also ensure that all information entered into the OJS system is complete, accurate, and consistent with the manuscript's content. Submissions that do not meet administrative requirements may be returned to the author for completion or correction before entering the editorial process. At this stage, the decision issued may be "Returned to Author" or "Revisions Required," meaning the manuscript is sent back to the author to address the requirements or revisions. If administrative deficiencies are not rectified within the specified timeframe, or if the manuscript fails to meet the journal's basic requirements, the editor may reject the manuscript before it proceeds to the peer review stage.

Initial Screening

Upon submission via OJS, the manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor. This stage constitutes an initial editorial screening rather than part of the peer review process. The purpose of this screening is to ensure the manuscript meets the journal's basic requirements and is suitable for progression to the next editorial stage. During this phase, the editor assesses the manuscript's alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope —specifically, whether the topic falls within the journal's Islamic studies domain. The editor also verifies adherence to author guidelines and the journal template, the completeness of the article structure, the clarity of author identity and metadata, preliminary academic merit, the clarity of research methodology, the fundamental quality of argumentation and scholarly presentation, and the appropriateness of language and academic formatting. The screening also involves a preliminary check for potential plagiarism or undue similarity, indications of publication-ethics violations, and potential conflicts of interest that could affect the editorial process.

The journal conducts similarity checks using Turnitin software. Similarity check results do not serve as an automatic basis for manuscript rejection. Any instances of similarity are academically evaluated to distinguish between acceptable similarity, correctly cited material, the use of common terms or phrases, and similarities that might indicate plagiarism or improper academic practice.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, exhibit fundamental academic flaws, show signs of publication ethics violations, or fail to meet minimum requirements may be rejected during the initial screening stage (desk rejection) without being sent to reviewers. Conversely, manuscripts meeting the initial requirements proceed to the editor assignment stage, where an editor is selected based on the manuscript's subject matter and substance. At this stage, three editorial decisions are possible: Desk Reject (if the manuscript is rejected during initial screening); Return to Author (if the manuscript must be returned for the correction of technical or administrative issues); and "Proceed to Editorial Assignment" if the manuscript meets the initial requirements and advances to the editor assignment stage. Rejection at the initial screening stage does not constitute a final judgment on the author's scientific quality; rather, it is an editorial decision that the manuscript does not yet meet the journal's basic requirements for entry into the peer-review process.

Editor Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to editors possessing competence and expertise relevant to the manuscript's field of study. This assignment process ensures that each manuscript is handled by an editor who understands the substance, scholarly context, and specific characteristics of the research presented in the text. The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor selects the editor by considering factors such as areas of expertise, academic experience, alignment of competence with the manuscript's theme, research or publication track record, editor availability, and potential conflicts of interest. The journal does not assign editors based solely on the order of manuscript submission. Instead, assignments are made based on academic competence, scholarly relevance, availability, and editorial independence to ensure the manuscript handling process remains objective and professional.

Editor Access Configuration in OJS

To maintain manuscript confidentiality and minimize potential conflicts of interest, Arba: Jurnal Studi Keislaman implements specific role and access configurations for editors within the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Once an editor is assigned to a manuscript, their role in OJS is configured as "Section Editor" for that specific manuscript. This arrangement ensures that the editor has access only to the manuscripts for which they are officially responsible, preventing unrestricted access to other manuscripts currently being processed by the journal. Through this mechanism, the journal applies the principle of "segregation of editorial access"—separating editorial access based on each editor's specific responsibilities. Each editor operates within the scope of the submissions assigned to them, in accordance with established editorial authority and duties. These access restrictions serve as an internal mechanism to safeguard manuscript confidentiality, protect author data and identities, minimize the likelihood of interference with other submissions, prevent unnecessary access to manuscripts, reduce the risk of conflicts of interest, and uphold the independence of the editorial process. Although editor access is restricted based on assigned manuscripts, editorial decisions remain within the policy and standards framework of Arba: Jurnal Studi Keislaman and are subject to the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief. This arrangement is not intended to limit an editor's professional independence in performing their duties, but rather to ensure that each editor carries out their responsibilities in a focused, proportionate, and confidential manner, and in accordance with the authority granted by the journal.

Conflict of Interest Review by Editors

An editor assigned to handle a manuscript must first determine whether any conflict of interest exists that could compromise the independence, objectivity, and integrity of the editorial decision-making process. Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: close personal or professional relationships with the author(s); supervisor-student relationships; employment within the same institution; involvement in the same research project; financial or institutional interests; academic rivalry that could affect objectivity; prior involvement with the manuscript; or other circumstances that might reasonably cast doubt on the editor's independence in performing their duties. Editors who have a conflict of interest must immediately disclose this to the Editor-in-Chief and are prohibited from handling or making editorial decisions regarding the manuscript in question. In such cases, the manuscript will be reassigned to another editor deemed sufficiently independent to handle the editorial process objectively. Arba: Jurnal Studi Keislaman is committed to preventing and minimizing situations where an editor could influence the editorial process for a manuscript with which they have a direct connection or specific interest. This policy is implemented to uphold fairness, transparency, independence, and integrity in the editorial process, and to ensure that every manuscript is evaluated based on its scientific quality and adherence to the journal's standards.

Editorial Assessment

Upon receiving an assignment, the editor conducts an in-depth editorial assessment of the manuscript to ensure it aligns with the journal's standards and policies before it proceeds to peer review. At this stage, the editor evaluates the manuscript's suitability regarding the journal's scope, the relevance and significance of the issues addressed, the clarity of research objectives, and its contribution to the advancement of Islamic studies. The assessment also covers the appropriateness of the approach and methodology, the quality of argumentation, the adequacy and relevance of primary and secondary sources, the article's structure and organization, the quality of references, and adherence to research and publication ethics. Furthermore, the editor ensures the manuscript possesses a sound academic foundation and appropriate scholarly structure to allow for objective peer review. The editor determines whether the manuscript warrants proceeding to the peer review process. If the manuscript contains fundamental flaws—rendering its substance, methodology, structure, or arguments unsuitable for effective evaluation via peer review—it may be rejected at this editorial stage. The editor may issue one of three decisions: "Reject," if the manuscript fails to meet editorial standards and is unsuitable for peer review; "Return to Author," if the manuscript has specific deficiencies that can be rectified before peer review; or "Send to Peer Review," if the manuscript meets editorial requirements and is deemed suitable for the peer review stage.

Selection and Assignment of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts deemed eligible for the peer review process will be assigned to at least two peer reviewers possessing competence and expertise relevant to the manuscript's topic, scope, and methodology. Reviewers are selected carefully, taking into account academic expertise, alignment of research fields, publication track record, experience in evaluating scientific manuscripts, independence of judgment, absence of conflicts of interest with the authors, and the ability to complete the review within the journal's established timeframe. The journal strives to avoid appointing reviewers from the same institution as the author if such an arrangement could potentially create a conflict of interest or compromise the objectivity of the assessment. All reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and any information obtained during the review process. Reviewers are prohibited from using, disseminating, profiting from, citing, or otherwise utilizing information, data, ideas, or findings contained in the manuscript for personal or academic purposes before its official publication.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Arba: Jurnal Studi Keislaman employs a double-blind peer review system as part of its scholarly evaluation process to ensure that manuscript assessments are conducted objectively, independently, and with integrity. Under this system, the author's identity is not disclosed to the reviewer, and the reviewer's identity is not disclosed to the author. All communication between the author and the reviewer takes place via the editorial system, while reviewer comments and recommendations are conveyed through mechanisms that preserve the anonymity of both parties. The editor acts as an intermediary between the author and the reviewer and is responsible for ensuring that the review process adheres to principles of confidentiality and independence.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on academic quality and scientific substance, rather than the author's identity, affiliation, reputation, gender, religion, nationality, or academic status. The assessment covers the novelty and originality of ideas, topic relevance, contribution to Islamic studies, clarity of the problem statement, methodological appropriateness, quality of analysis, use of sources, accuracy of interpretation, strength of argumentation, consistency among objectives, methods, results, and conclusions, quality of presentation, quality and relevance of references, adherence to academic ethics, and the article's suitability for publication. Based on the evaluation, reviewers may recommend: Accept Submission, Revision Required, Resubmit for Review, Resubmit Elsewhere, or Decline Submission. While these recommendations are a crucial part of editorial consideration, they do not automatically determine the final decision regarding the manuscript. The editor makes the final decision based on the entire evaluation process, including review outcomes, manuscript quality, alignment with the journal's focus and scope, and other editorial considerations.

Handling Disagreements Among Reviewers

If there are significant discrepancies between reviewers' recommendations on a manuscript, the editor will thoroughly evaluate the comments, arguments, and underlying rationale for each recommendation. This evaluation is not based solely on the final recommendation outcome but also considers the relevance, consistency, depth, and academic quality of each reviewer's input. If necessary, the editor may seek further clarification from reviewers regarding their comments or recommendations, request an additional review from a third reviewer to gain a more objective academic perspective, conduct a further editorial evaluation of the manuscript, or refer the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief for an editorial decision.

Arba: Jurnal Studi Keislaman does not employ a simple mathematical mechanism to determine editorial decisions—such as accepting a manuscript based merely on a higher number of "accept" recommendations compared to others. The substance, relevance, and quality of the arguments within each review report remain the primary considerations. While reviewer recommendations are a vital part of the evaluation process, the final decision rests with the editorial team. It is not determined solely by vote counts or consensus among reviewers. Ultimately, editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scientific quality and contribution, the substance and quality of reviewer comments, the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope and policies, the extent to which it meets scientific publication standards, and overall editorial judgment.

Initial Editorial Decision

Once all review reports have been received, the editor thoroughly evaluates the reviewers' comments and recommendations, considering scientific quality, methodological soundness, strength of argumentation, adherence to publication ethics standards, and the manuscript's alignment with the journal's focus and scope. Based on this evaluation, the editor issues an initial editorial decision to guide the next stage of the editorial process. Editorial decisions may be: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

a. Accept

An "Accept" decision is issued when the manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial standards and requires no substantive changes. The manuscript may proceed to the final editing, formatting, and production stages in accordance with the journal's publication procedures.

b. Minor Revision

A "Minor Revision" decision is issued when the manuscript substantially meets the requirements for publication but still requires limited improvements. These improvements may include clarifying arguments, refining specific descriptions, correcting language and writing style, adjusting or supplementing references, and improving sections that were not optimally presented. Revisions at this stage do not alter the core substance of the research and generally do not require fundamental changes to the methodology or the structure of the argument.

c. Major Revision

A "Major Revision" decision is issued when the manuscript shows potential for publication but contains substantial issues that must be resolved before it can be considered for acceptance. Improvements may address aspects such as research methodology, the depth and accuracy of analysis, the structure of the argument, the use and relevance of sources, the presentation or interpretation of results, and other substantive matters affecting the article's quality and validity. Manuscripts receiving a "Major Revision" decision will be re-evaluated after the author submits a revised version to ensure that the key issues identified during the review process have been adequately addressed.

d. Reject

A "Reject" decision is issued when the manuscript fails to meet the journal's scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards, rendering it unsuitable for further processing in the publication workflow. Rejection may result from fundamental flaws in methodology or argumentation, insufficient scientific contribution, misalignment with the journal's focus and scope, publication ethics issues, or other substantive problems that preclude the manuscript from being properly processed further. In certain instances, a manuscript may receive a "Reject" decision even after the author has been allowed to revise it. This can occur if the revised version fails to address fundamental issues raised by reviewers or editors adequately, or if the improvements made do not meet the scientific and editorial standards established by the journal. Editorial decisions are based on an assessment of the manuscript version under evaluation and the overall review process; consequently, the opportunity to revise does not automatically guarantee that the manuscript will be accepted for publication.

Revision Process by the Author

If the editorial decision is "Minor Revision" or "Major Revision," the author will receive comments, notes, and recommendations from reviewers and editors via the OJS system and through annotations within the manuscript file. Authors are required to address all feedback by revising the manuscript systematically, meticulously, and consistently, in accordance with the substance of the comments provided. At this stage, the author must upload the revised manuscript and a response to the reviewers' and/or editors' comments. Responses should be structured to provide clear explanations for each point of feedback, detailing the changes made, the location of these changes within the manuscript, and academic justifications for any recommendations that were not adopted. If a comment requires clarification or further explanation, the author should provide a response that is relevant, objective, and supported by academic argumentation. Authors are not obliged to agree with or implement every reviewer comment automatically. If an author has a strong academic reason for not following a recommendation, they may present that reason scientifically, argumentatively, and courteously in the response document. Any decision to retain specific parts of the manuscript must be accompanied by sufficient justification so that reviewers and editors can understand the underlying academic considerations. Revisions should be comprehensive, ensuring that changes in one section of the manuscript do not create inconsistencies elsewhere and that all relevant comments have been addressed before the revised manuscript is resubmitted via OJS.

Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts undergo a re-examination by the editor to ensure that the author has adequately addressed all comments, recommendations, and issues identified during the review process. If the revisions are minor and do not require further assessment, the editor may evaluate the manuscript directly. However, if the revisions are substantial, the manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of review. At this stage, reviewers assess the extent to which comments and recommendations from the previous round have been addressed and whether the author's changes have improved the manuscript's quality, accuracy, clarity, and substance. The revision process may involve multiple rounds if issues requiring further improvement persist. Following the evaluation of the revised manuscript, the editorial decision may be Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Resubmit for Review, or Reject, depending on the degree to which the manuscript meets the requirements and scholarly standards established by Arba: Jurnal Studi Keislaman. If the author fails to revise the manuscript adequately, provide clear responses to reviewer comments, or resolve key issues identified during the review process, the manuscript may be rejected, even if the author was previously allowed to revise it.

Final Decision

Once the peer review stages and revision processes are complete, the manuscript enters the final editorial decision phase. At this stage, the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor conducts a final review to ensure that the peer review process was adequate, the authors have addressed all reviewer comments and recommendations, the submitted revisions have been verified, and there are no unresolved issues regarding publication ethics or conflicts of interest. The editor also confirms that the manuscript meets the journal's scientific standards, scope, and editorial requirements, making it suitable for the production stage. The final decision rests with the journal's editorial authority and must be based on the manuscript's quality, validity, relevance, and scientific contribution. This decision-making process must remain free from the influence of commercial interests, personal relationships, author affiliations or institutional ties, and other non-academic factors. This principle aligns with scientific publication guidelines that prioritize scholarly merit as the basis for editorial decisions and mandate independence in the decision-making process. Based on this final review, the editorial decision may be "Accept for Publication" if the manuscript meets all requirements and is deemed suitable for publication, or "Reject" if the manuscript fails to meet scientific standards or journal requirements after considering the entire evaluation and revision process.

Copyediting and Layout

Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, it enters the copyediting and production stage to ensure it meets the journal's linguistic, technical, and stylistic standards. During copyediting, the manuscript undergoes meticulous review and editing to ensure consistency in language and terminology; clarity and structural coherence; correct formatting of citations and references; accurate presentation of tables and figures; proper listing of author names and affiliations; completeness of article metadata; and overall adherence to the journal's style guidelines. This process focuses on refining the manuscript's presentation and consistency without altering the accepted scientific substance, arguments, or research findings. Following copyediting, the manuscript proceeds to the layout stage, where it is formatted according to the journal's design and publication standards. This involves arranging text, headings, tables, figures, citations, references, and other elements to produce a final version that is consistent, polished, and ready for readers. During this production phase, authors may be asked to review the laid-out version to ensure there are no technical errors or information requiring correction before publication.

Publication

Articles that have completed all editorial stages and the production process will be officially published on the Arba: Jurnal Studi Keislaman website. At the publication stage, the article is available in its final version for reader access. Bibliographic information—including the title, author names, affiliations, abstract, keywords, volume, issue, page numbers or article identifier, PDF galley, and DOI—will be fully listed in the publication metadata. The article's publication date becomes part of the publication record and serves as official information for citation, retrieval, and indexing purposes.

Commitment to Publication Ethics

Commitment to transparency, quality, and publication ethics is the main foundation in managing the review process of this journal. In addition to following the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, Arba also provides internal training for editors and reviewers to always follow the latest developments in the academic world. With this approach, Arba: Jurnal Studi Keislaman is determined to become the main reference in scientific publications in the field of Islamic studies that are credible and reputable.