Roles and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

The peer reviewer is tasked with critically reading and evaluating manuscripts within their area of expertise, providing constructive suggestions and candid feedback to the article's author. Peer reviewers assess the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, recommend strategies to enhance its quality and rigor, and evaluate its relevance and authenticity.

• Participate in the peer-review system to uphold the rigorous standards of the scientific process.
• Uphold the integrity of the journal by identifying invalid research and contributing to the maintenance of its quality.
• Fulfill a sense of responsibility toward the community and their respective field of research.
• Establish professional relationships with reputable colleagues and their associated journals to enhance opportunities for inclusion on Editorial Boards.
• Prevent ethical violations by identifying plagiarism, research misconduct, and related issues through an in-depth understanding of the subject area.
• Uphold professional ethics and the principle of reciprocity by delivering objective, fair, and respectful evaluations, acknowledging that the roles of author and reviewer are interchangeable within the scientific community.

 

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please take the following points into consideration:

 

Abstract

Please evaluate whether the abstract:

• Clearly summarizes the article and its academic focus;
• States the research problem(s) and objectives;
• Describes the theoretical framework and methodology;
• Presents the main findings and their implications for Islamic legal thought; and
• Complies with the required length of approximately 200–230 words.

 

Introduction

Please assess whether the introduction section:

• Clearly establishes the academic background and foundation of the research;
• Provides a well-reasoned justification for the selection of the research topic and its academic significance;
• Clearly explains the rationale for choosing the specific object of study and its theoretical and empirical relevance;
• Critically engages with relevant international scholarly debates, identifying key perspectives, gaps, and unresolved issues; and
• Explicitly formulates the academic problem, research question(s), and research objectives in a coherent and logically connected manner.

 

Literature Review

Please examine whether the literature review section:

• Demonstrates critical and analytical engagement with relevant scholarly works;
• Is organized as a coherent and integrative narrative rather than a descriptive listing of sources;
• Synthesizes key arguments, theories, and findings from the existing literature;
• Draws upon a broad range of authoritative and up-to-date academic sources; and
• Clearly identifies the novelty of the study by distinguishing it from prior research and explicitly stating its original academic contributions.

 

Method

Please assess whether the method section:

• Clearly presents the theoretical framework, including the theory applied, the perspective adopted, the justification for its selection, and the operationalization of key variables or concepts within the study;
• Adequately describes the research context, data collection methods, and identified data sources;
• Clearly specifies the type and/or approach of the research and explains how it is implemented in the study; and
• Clearly explains the data analysis techniques employed to address the research questions.

 

Result

Please determine whether the result section:

• Presents the research findings in a detailed, systematic, and comprehensive manner;
• Provides a clear and analytically grounded presentation of the results rather than a purely descriptive account;
• Explicitly addresses each research question in alignment with the stated academic problem;
• Is logically organized and coherently structured to guide the reader through the findings; and
• Maintains consistency with the overall structure and objectives of the study.

 

Discussion

Please consider whether the discussion section:

• Provides a critical and in-depth analysis of the research findings, with a clear focus on the main research topic and the cases examined;
• Goes beyond descriptive reporting by analytically engaging with the findings and situating them within relevant theoretical frameworks and scholarly literature;
• Clearly articulates the theoretical and/or practical implications of the findings for the development of Islamic legal thought;
• Identifies key issues or insights that open avenues for further academic inquiry; and
• Contributes meaningfully to the advancement of rigorous and substantive scholarly discourse.

 

Conclusion

Please verify whether the conclusion section:

• Provides a concise and integrative synthesis of the main research findings and arguments derived from the results and discussion;
• Clearly highlights the principal academic contributions of the study;
• Critically acknowledges the weaknesses and limitations of the research; and
• Offers well-grounded recommendations or directions for future research to advance scholarly discourse in the field.

 

References

Please check whether the references section:

• Strictly follows the Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition (Notes and Bibliography, subsequent author–title system);
• Is organized alphabetically and includes only sources cited in the manuscript; and
• Demonstrates consistency and accuracy in citation and bibliographic formatting throughout the article.

 

Tables and Figures

Please evaluate whether the tables and figures:

• Are used appropriately to support, clarify, and enhance the presentation of the research;
• Are relevant to the research questions and findings discussed in the manuscript; and
• Strictly adhere to the formatting and presentation guidelines specified in the journal’s Article Template available on the OJS website.

 

Reviewer Recommendation

When submitting your recommendation, please select one of the following options based on the overall quality of the manuscript:

• Accept Submission
  The manuscript meets the journal’s academic standards in terms of originality, methodological rigor, clarity of argumentation, and contribution to Islamic legal scholarship, and requires no substantive revisions.
• Revision Required
  The manuscript demonstrates academic merit but requires minor to moderate revisions, such as improvements in clarity, structure, engagement with literature, or technical compliance, which do not necessitate a second round of external review.
• Resubmit for Review
  The manuscript requires substantial revisions affecting core elements of the study (e.g., theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, or coherence of argumentation) and should be resubmitted for a new round of peer review after revision.
• Reject (Decline Submission)
  The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic standards due to fundamental weaknesses in originality, methodology, argumentation, or relevance to the journal’s scope, and is therefore not suitable for publication.