Review Process

Review Process

At-Tafakkur: Journal of Islamic Studies

At-Tafakkur: Journal of Islamic Studies is committed to ensuring the quality, originality, and academic integrity of every published article through a rigorous and transparent peer-review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal's scope.
  • Complies with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript template.
  • Meets minimum standards of academic writing and English language quality.
  • Contains complete metadata and required submission documents.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for revision before entering the review stage or may be declined.

Similarity Check

All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software before peer review.

A manuscript with an unacceptable level of textual similarity, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct will be rejected. Authors may be requested to revise the manuscript if the similarity level exceeds the journal's acceptable threshold but is considered remediable.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

The reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific significance
  • Relevance to the journal's scope
  • Theoretical foundation
  • Research methodology
  • Quality of analysis and discussion
  • Validity of conclusions
  • Quality of references
  • Clarity of writing and organization
  • Ethical compliance

Since the review is double-blind, reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions Required
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Reject

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests should submit:

  • A revised manuscript.
  • A detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeframe may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from the review process.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Final Evaluation

After all reviewer comments have been satisfactorily addressed, the editorial team conducts a final evaluation to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's academic and publication standards.

Copyediting and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts proceed to:

  • Language editing
  • Copyediting
  • Reference verification
  • Layout editing
  • Author proofreading

Authors are responsible for carefully reviewing the final proof before publication.

Publication

Once the final proof has been approved by the authors and editorial team, the article is scheduled for publication in the forthcoming issue of the journal.

Published articles become immediately available under the journal's Open Access Policy.

Estimated Timeline

Stage Estimated Time
Initial Editorial Screening 3–7 days
Similarity Check 1–3 days
Reviewer Assignment 3–7 days
Peer Review 3–5 weeks
Author Revision 2–4 weeks
Final Editorial Decision 1 week
Copyediting & Proofreading 1–2 weeks
Publication In the next available issue

Estimated total processing time: approximately 8–12 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the quality of revisions submitted by the authors.

Peer Review Principles

The journal adheres to the following principles throughout the review process:

  • Fairness and impartiality
  • Confidentiality
  • Academic integrity
  • Constructive and objective feedback
  • Timeliness
  • Independence from conflicts of interest
  • Compliance with the ethical standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Reviewers are expected to provide professional, evidence-based evaluations that support the improvement of scholarly work while maintaining confidentiality and ethical conduct.