Peer Review Process Statement

The Journal of Islam in Asia (JIA) upholds the highest standards of academic integrity and scholarly rigor in its peer review process. In line with the ethical principles set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), JIA is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, and objective review system.

 

  1. Type of Peer Review

JIA employs a double-blind peer review process. This means that both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. Authors are required to submit a separate title page with full author information to ensure anonymity in the main manuscript.

 

  1. Editorial Screening

Upon submission, all manuscripts are first screened by the Editorial Committee. This initial review ensures the manuscript falls within the journal’s scope, aligns with its aims, and adheres to the formatting and ethical guidelines. Manuscripts that meet these requirements are then forwarded for peer review.

 

  1. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise and familiarity with the topic of the submitted manuscript. While JIA typically assigns one qualified reviewer per manuscript, the editorial team may request additional reviews as necessary. Reviewers may be members of the editorial board or external experts in the relevant field.

 

  1. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess submissions based on the following criteria:

  • Originality of the research and scholarly contribution
  • Methodological soundness and academic rigor
  • Coherence and clarity of argumentation
  • Relevance and accuracy of citations
  • Alignment with ethical standards, particularly with respect to plagiarism
  • Contribution to Islamic scholarship in the context of Asia

Reviewers may also provide suggestions for improving the manuscript’s structure, clarity, and language, though language correction is not their primary responsibility.

 

  1. Review Outcomes

Reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept Submission – suitable for publication without significant changes.
  2. Minor Revisions Required – suitable for publication with minor amendments.
  3. Major Revisions Required – the manuscript requires substantial changes and will be re-reviewed.
  4. Reject – the manuscript is not suitable for publication in JIA.

Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Committee based on the reviewer's recommendation and the author's revisions.

 

  1. Duration of the Review Process

While the review timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity, the typical duration ranges from 1 to 3 months. The editorial team strives to ensure a timely and efficient review process.