Review Guideline

Al’Adalah: Journal of Islamic Studies relies on independent peer reviewers to maintain the academic quality, originality, and integrity of its publications. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations that assist editors in making publication decisions and help authors improve their manuscripts.

 

1. Before Accepting a Review

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have sufficient expertise in the manuscript's subject and research approach and can complete the review within the agreed timeframe. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and inform the editor when circumstances could compromise their independence or impartiality. All manuscripts and related materials must remain confidential throughout the review process.

 

2. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

a. Relevance to Focus and Scope

Does the manuscript make a substantive contribution to at least one of the journal's three core areas: Muslim civil society and religious communities; Islamic religious movements and religious authority; or Islam, citizenship, and society–state relations?

b. Research Problem and Scholarly Contribution

Does the manuscript present a clear and significant research problem? Does it offer an original argument, finding, interpretation, or contribution to relevant scholarship?

c. Engagement with Literature

Does the manuscript engage critically with relevant scholarly literature? Does it accurately represent previous research and establish a clear position within existing academic discussions?

d. Methodology and Analytical Approach

Is the research approach appropriate to the problem being investigated? Are the sources, procedures, and methods of analysis sufficiently explained?

Reviewers should consider the methodological characteristics of empirical, historical, normative, conceptual, theoretical, and comparative research without imposing inappropriate requirements from other research traditions.

e. Evidence, Analysis, and Discussion

Are the manuscript's claims supported by appropriate evidence, reliable sources, or defensible scholarly reasoning? Does the analysis address the research problem and critically engage with relevant interpretations or alternative explanations?

f. Conclusion

Does the conclusion address the research problem, accurately reflect the findings or arguments, and explain the scholarly contribution without introducing unsupported claims?

g. Academic Writing and References

Is the manuscript clearly organized and written in appropriate academic language? Are references relevant, sufficient, accurately cited, and consistent with the journal's referencing requirements?

 

3. Review Report

Reviewers should provide a clear evaluation identifying the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring improvement. Comments should be specific, constructive, and supported by scholarly reasoning. Reviewers should distinguish essential revisions affecting the manuscript's academic quality from minor editorial or stylistic suggestions. Personal criticism and unsupported judgments must be avoided. Reviewers should not require authors to cite particular publications unless those sources are directly relevant to the manuscript's arguments or evidence.

 

4. Review Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers should submit their reports and select an appropriate recommendation through the journal's online submission system.

Recommendations may include:

Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal's academic standards and requires no substantive revision.

Revisions Required: The manuscript requires revisions that can ordinarily be evaluated by the editor.

Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revision and further scholarly evaluation.

Decline Submission: The manuscript has significant weaknesses that make it unsuitable for publication.

Reviewers provide recommendations; the final publication decision remains the responsibility of the editorial team.

 

5. Confidentiality and Research Integrity

Reviewers must not share manuscripts, disclose unpublished findings, or use confidential information obtained during peer review for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers should inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, research misconduct, or other serious ethical concerns, providing supporting reasons where possible. If reviewers become aware of an author's identity or recognize a potential conflict of interest, they should inform the editor.

 

Use of Generative AI in Peer Review

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, unpublished research materials, and peer review communications. They must not upload manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, figures, research data, or confidential review materials to external generative AI services without explicit editorial authorization, the authors' permission where required, and adequate confidentiality safeguards. Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools for limited supporting activities, such as improving the language or clarity of their own review reports, provided that no confidential manuscript information is disclosed. Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly assessment, critical reasoning, or professional judgment. Reviewers must disclose any substantive use of generative AI in preparing their review reports, identifying the tool and the purpose of its use. Such disclosures should be communicated confidentially to the editor. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality, and scholarly quality of their evaluations. All AI-assisted content must be critically reviewed and verified before submission. Reviewers must comply with the journal's Generative AI Policy throughout the peer review process.

 

6. Completing the Review

Reviewers should submit their evaluation through the journal's online system within the agreed timeframe. Comments intended for authors should provide constructive guidance, while confidential concerns about publication ethics or editorial decisions may be communicated separately to the editor. Reviewers who cannot complete an assigned review should inform the editorial team promptly.