Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Digital Islamic Thought undergo a rigorous selection and evaluation process supervised by the Editorial Board to ensure adherence to the journal’s author guidelines, thematic scope, and standards of scholarly excellence. This process is fully aligned with the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), emphasizing transparency, integrity, and fairness in academic publishing. To meet the requirements for indexing in Scopus and Web of Science, the journal implements a robust double-blind peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain concealed to minimize bias and ensure impartial evaluation. All submissions undergo an initial plagiarism check using established detection software, and both authors and prospective reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to participating in the review process.

Initial Editorial Assessment

During the initial editorial assessment (desk review), manuscripts are evaluated for conformity to the journal’s formatting and stylistic guidelines, alignment with its focus and scope, and overall academic merit. This stage includes verifying ethical compliance, including proper authorship attribution and data integrity. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the authors with detailed feedback, providing an opportunity for targeted revisions within a specified timeframe (typically two weeks). Submissions deemed unsuitable for the journal’s aims may be declined at this stage to maintain efficiency and uphold editorial standards.

Peer Review

Once a manuscript passes the initial assessment, it is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected from a diverse and internationally recognized pool to ensure broad scholarly representation. They are required to follow COPE’s ethical guidelines, providing timely, constructive, and objective evaluations that address methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, originality, clarity, and relevance. The review period is limited to three weeks to maintain an efficient workflow. Manuscripts that do not advance beyond the desk review stage are not forwarded for external review.

Reviewers’ Recommendations

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations, consistent with WAME’s emphasis on a comprehensive evaluation of evidence, methodology, and scholarly significance:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further modification.

  • Accept with Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires only minor modifications—such as clarifications or stylistic adjustments—before publication.

  • Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions): Substantial revisions are required, such as improvements in data analysis, theoretical framing, or structural organization.

  • Reject: The manuscript contains fundamental flaws—methodological, conceptual, or ethical—and is unsuitable for publication.

These recommendations are considered by the Editorial Board, which makes the final determination regarding the manuscript’s status, ensuring alignment with Scopus and Web of Science standards for rigorous editorial oversight.

Revision Phase

Manuscripts requiring revisions are returned to the corresponding author along with a detailed reviewer report and a response form. Authors must address all comments systematically and provide a point-by-point rebuttal. For major revisions, authors are typically given three weeks; minor revisions carry a one-week deadline. Revised manuscripts must include the completed response form to facilitate verification and ensure transparency.

Final Editorial Decision

Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the Editorial Board and, when necessary, by the original reviewers to confirm that all concerns have been adequately addressed. Consistent with COPE’s standards for accountability, the journal reserves the right to reject a submission at this stage if revisions are incomplete or insufficient. Acceptance signifies that the manuscript meets the journal’s requirements for scholarly quality and publication readiness.

Proofreading and Copyediting

Accepted manuscripts undergo professional proofreading and copyediting to ensure linguistic precision, structural coherence, and adherence to American English conventions. This process upholds the journal’s commitment to producing high-quality scholarly content.

Publication Approval

The finalized typeset manuscript is sent to the author for final review, limited strictly to typographical corrections. Upon approval, the Editorial Secretariat processes the article for online and print publication, ensuring timely global accessibility through the journal’s platform.

This peer review system safeguards the integrity of published scholarship and ensures equitable participation, in accordance with international best practices for ethical and high-quality academic publishing.

References