Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Digital Sharia and Contemporary Legal Thought undergo a rigorous selection and evaluation process overseen by the Editorial Board to ensure full compliance with the journal’s author guidelines, thematic scope, and standards of scholarly excellence. The review process is conducted in accordance with the ethical principles and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), with a strong emphasis on transparency, integrity, and fairness in academic publishing.

In alignment with the requirements of international indexing systems such as Scopus and the Web of Science, the journal implements a robust double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to minimize bias and ensure impartial evaluation. All submissions are subjected to an initial plagiarism screening using recognized detection software. Authors and reviewers are required to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest prior to participation in the review process.

Initial Editorial Assessment

At the initial editorial assessment (desk review) stage, manuscripts are evaluated for compliance with the journal’s formatting and stylistic requirements, alignment with its aims and scope, and overall scholarly merit. Particular attention is given to the relevance of the submission to issues of Islamic law, digital sharia governance, contemporary legal thought, socio-legal transformation, and normative reasoning in digitally mediated contexts.

This stage also involves verifying ethical compliance, including proper authorship attribution, citation integrity, and the responsible use of data and sources. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the authors with detailed editorial feedback and an opportunity for targeted revision within a specified timeframe (typically two weeks). Submissions deemed fundamentally misaligned with the journal’s scope may be declined at this stage to maintain editorial efficiency and academic coherence.

Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with demonstrated expertise in Islamic jurisprudence, legal theory, comparative law, digital governance, or related socio-legal fields. Reviewers are selected from a diverse and internationally representative pool to ensure balanced scholarly perspectives.

Reviewers are expected to adhere strictly to COPE’s ethical guidelines and to provide timely, constructive, and objective evaluations addressing methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, originality, clarity of argumentation, and relevance to contemporary debates in digital sharia and legal thought. The standard review period is three weeks. Manuscripts that do not advance beyond the desk review stage are not forwarded for external peer review.

Reviewers’ Recommendations

In accordance with WAME’s emphasis on comprehensive scholarly evaluation, reviewers are asked to issue one of the following recommendations:

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

• Accept with Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor clarifications, stylistic refinements, or limited substantive adjustments.

• Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions): The manuscript requires substantial revisions, such as strengthening legal analysis, refining theoretical framing, or improving methodological coherence.

• Reject: The manuscript contains fundamental methodological, conceptual, or ethical deficiencies and is unsuitable for publication in the journal.

These recommendations are reviewed by the Editorial Board, which retains full responsibility for the final editorial decision, in accordance with Scopus and Web of Science standards for editorial oversight and accountability.

Revision Phase

Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the corresponding author together with detailed reviewer reports and a structured response form. Authors must address all reviewer comments systematically and provide a point-by-point response explaining how each issue has been resolved. Major revisions are typically allotted a three-week revision period, while minor revisions are given a one-week period. Revised submissions must include the completed response form to facilitate transparent verification.

Final Editorial Decision

Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the Editorial Board and, where necessary, by the original reviewers to confirm that all substantive concerns have been adequately addressed. In accordance with COPE’s standards of editorial responsibility, the journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript at this stage if revisions are deemed insufficient or incomplete. Acceptance indicates that the manuscript meets the journal’s criteria for scholarly rigor, ethical compliance, and publication readiness.

Proofreading and Copyediting

Accepted manuscripts undergo professional proofreading and copyediting to ensure linguistic precision, structural coherence, terminological consistency, and adherence to American English academic conventions. This process reflects the journal’s commitment to publishing high-quality scholarship in the fields of digital sharia and contemporary legal thought.

Publication Approval

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

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

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers

World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). (2019). Recommendations on publication ethics policies for medical journals. https://wame.org/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals

Elsevier. (2024). Scopus content policy and selection criteria. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/content/content-policy-and-selection

Clarivate. (2024). Journal evaluation process and selection criteria. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/web-of-science-core-collection/editorial-selection-process/journal-evaluation-process-selection-criteria/