PEER REVIEW POLICY

Al-Mumtaz: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam is committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly quality, research integrity, fairness, and transparency through a rigorous peer-review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal must be relevant to its focus and scope, comply with the author guidelines, and demonstrate originality, methodological rigor, and a meaningful contribution to Islamic education and Islamic educational management.

The peer-review process is intended to evaluate the scientific merit, originality, relevance, theoretical foundation, methodological soundness, accuracy of interpretation, and clarity of presentation of each manuscript. Reviewers provide constructive, evidence-based recommendations to help authors improve their work, while editors retain responsibility for editorial decisions.

1. INITIAL EDITORIAL ASSESSMENT

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the journal's focus and scope and complies with the submission requirements. Editors assess the manuscript's relevance, originality, completeness, presentation, ethical compliance, and potential scholarly contribution.

The editorial team may conduct a preliminary similarity assessment using plagiarism-detection software, including Turnitin or an equivalent tool. Similarity reports are interpreted contextually rather than solely on the basis of a numerical score. Properly cited quotations, reference lists, standard terminology, and other legitimate textual matches must be distinguished from unattributed copying or inappropriate reuse of previously published material.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, lack sufficient scholarly contribution, or raise unresolved ethical concerns may be returned to the authors or rejected before external peer review. Passing the initial assessment does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

2. DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process. Under this model, reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities, and authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers. The editorial team takes reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of both parties throughout the review process.

Each research article is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area, research methodology, or theoretical framework. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary to obtain sufficient specialist assessment or to resolve substantially divergent recommendations.

Authors should prepare manuscripts for anonymous review by removing names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, and other identifying information from the review document where required. Self-citations should be presented in a manner that preserves scholarly clarity without unnecessarily revealing author identity. Any separate title page or author information file should be uploaded according to the journal's submission instructions.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, relevant research experience, and ability to provide an impartial assessment. Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when personal, professional, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationships could compromise their independence.

3. REVIEW CRITERIA

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts using criteria appropriate to the research design and subject matter. The assessment generally considers the following aspects:

• Relevance and scope: The extent to which the manuscript addresses issues within Islamic education and Islamic educational management and is appropriate for the journal's readership.
• Originality and contribution: The novelty, significance, and scholarly value of the research in relation to existing literature.
• Theoretical foundation: The adequacy and critical use of relevant theories, concepts, and previous studies.
• Research methodology: The appropriateness of the research design, sampling procedures, data sources, instruments, data collection, and analytical techniques.
• Results and interpretation: The accuracy, clarity, consistency, and evidential support of the findings and their interpretation.
• Discussion and implications: The extent to which the findings are critically discussed in relation to previous research and contribute to theory, policy, or educational practice.
• References and scholarly engagement: The relevance, credibility, currency, and accuracy of the cited literature and the adequacy of the engagement with existing scholarship.
• Research ethics and integrity: Compliance with applicable ethical standards, appropriate reporting of research procedures, and responsible handling of data and participant information.
• Clarity and organization: The logical structure, academic language, readability, and compliance with the journal's manuscript requirements.

Reviewers should provide clear, professional, constructive, and evidence-based comments. Criticism must focus on the scholarly content rather than the personal characteristics of the authors. Reviewers should identify significant methodological weaknesses, unsupported claims, relevant omissions, and specific improvements that could strengthen the manuscript.

4. REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers submit their comments and recommend an editorial outcome. The possible recommendations are:

• Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and editorial standards and requires no substantive revision beyond any minor editorial corrections specified by the editor.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially publishable after limited revisions addressing issues such as clarification, additional explanation, reference corrections, or other relatively minor improvements.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements to its theoretical argument, methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation before it can be considered further.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for relevance, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, or scholarly contribution, or its deficiencies cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final editorial decision. Editors evaluate the substance of the reports, the quality of the manuscript, the journal's policies, and any relevant ethical considerations before determining the appropriate outcome.

5. EDITORIAL DECISIONS

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the responsible editor, taking into account the reviewers' comments and the journal's editorial standards. Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent opinion or conduct a further assessment before reaching a decision.

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the integrity of the editorial process and the final publication decision, subject to the journal's internal editorial arrangements. Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, relevance, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and the suitability of the manuscript for the journal.

Acceptance is not determined solely by the date of submission, the author's institutional affiliation, nationality, geographic location, or personal relationships. The order and timing of publication are determined by the editorial team in accordance with scholarly priorities, completion of the editorial process, production requirements, and the journal's publication schedule.

6. REVISION AND AUTHOR RESPONSE

When revision is requested, authors must carefully consider all comments provided by the reviewers and editors. A revised manuscript should be submitted within the deadline specified in the editorial decision. Authors should include a separate point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed and identifying the relevant changes in the revised manuscript.

If authors disagree with a reviewer's recommendation, they should provide a reasoned scholarly explanation supported by appropriate evidence or references. Authors should not disregard reviewer comments without explanation. Where practical, changes should be clearly indicated in the revised document or described according to the instructions provided by the editorial office.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Submission of a revised manuscript does not automatically guarantee acceptance. A manuscript may undergo additional rounds of review if substantial issues remain unresolved.

7. CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished information, share manuscript content with unauthorized individuals, or use ideas, data, or findings obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must inform the editorial team of any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting or continuing a review assignment. Editors must also manage conflicts of interest appropriately and, where necessary, arrange for another qualified editor to oversee the manuscript.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to maintain professional conduct throughout the review process. Concerns about research integrity, suspected misconduct, inappropriate influence, or breaches of confidentiality should be reported to the editorial office and handled in accordance with the journal's applicable policies.

8. PLAGIARISM AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY

All submissions must be free from plagiarism and other forms of publication misconduct. Authors are strongly encouraged to check their manuscripts using reliable similarity-detection software before submission. The editorial team may use Turnitin or another appropriate tool as part of the preliminary assessment or subsequent editorial evaluation.

Similarity reports are evaluated in context and do not, by themselves, establish whether plagiarism has occurred. Editors assess the nature, source, extent, attribution, and presentation of matching text. Properly attributed quotations and standard terminology must be distinguished from unattributed copying, inappropriate text recycling, and other forms of unacceptable overlap.

If plagiarism, fabricated data, falsified results, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other serious ethical concerns are identified, the editorial team may request an explanation, suspend the review process, reject the manuscript, or take other appropriate action in accordance with the journal's policies. Where necessary, concerns arising after publication may be addressed through corrections, expressions of concern, or retraction procedures.

9. REVIEW TIMELINES AND PUBLICATION SCHEDULING

The duration of peer review depends on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the time required for revisions, and the need for additional assessment. The editorial team makes reasonable efforts to process submissions efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of the review process.

Authors will be informed of editorial decisions through the journal's OJS platform or official communication channels. If a review is delayed, the editorial team may contact the reviewers, invite replacement reviewers, or take other appropriate steps to advance the process.

The publication schedule and final order of accepted articles are determined by the editorial team according to the completion of review and revision, production readiness, thematic planning, and the journal's publication schedule. Acceptance does not necessarily mean immediate publication in the next issue.

10. APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual error, a demonstrable procedural irregularity, or a material misunderstanding of the manuscript may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals must provide clear explanations and supporting evidence and should focus on scholarly or procedural grounds rather than disagreement alone.

Appeals will be considered by the appropriate editor or another authorized editorial representative who was not directly responsible for the original decision, where feasible. The journal may request additional independent advice before deciding whether further consideration is warranted. The outcome of an appeal will be communicated to the authors and will follow the journal's applicable editorial procedures.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial handling, research ethics, or possible publication misconduct should be directed to the editorial office. The journal will assess such concerns fairly and confidentially, consistent with applicable publication ethics standards.

11. EDITORIAL CONTACT

For questions concerning the peer-review process, editorial decisions, revisions, or publication ethics, authors and reviewers may contact the editorial office of Al-Mumtaz: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam.

Email: mumtaz@iainsorong.ac.id

Al-Mumtaz: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam is committed to conducting peer review with fairness, confidentiality, independence, and scholarly integrity. All participants in the publication process are expected to uphold these principles to support the publication of credible, original, and valuable research in Islamic education.