Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Al-Mumtaz: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, research integrity, and publication ethics. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an editorial assessment and, where appropriate, a rigorous peer-review process to evaluate their originality, scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

The journal applies a double-blind peer-review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. Editorial decisions are based on the academic merit of each manuscript, the reviewers' assessments, and the journal's editorial policies. Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

1. INITIAL EDITORIAL ASSESSMENT

Upon submission, each manuscript is examined by the editorial team to determine whether it meets the journal's basic requirements. This initial assessment includes an evaluation of the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, compliance with the author guidelines, clarity of presentation, originality, and adherence to applicable publication ethics standards.

The editorial team may also conduct an initial screening for plagiarism, inappropriate text overlap, and other potential research-integrity concerns using available similarity-detection tools. Similarity reports are interpreted critically and do not, by themselves, determine whether a manuscript constitutes plagiarism.

Manuscripts that fall substantially outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, lack sufficient scholarly merit, or raise serious ethical concerns may be rejected at this stage without external review. Manuscripts that satisfy the initial requirements may proceed to peer review.

2. DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. The journal normally seeks evaluations from at least two independent reviewers, subject to reviewer availability and the requirements of the manuscript.

Under the double-blind review system, identifying information is removed from the manuscript files provided to reviewers, as far as reasonably practicable. Authors and reviewers are expected not to attempt to identify one another. Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, relevant scholarly experience, and ability to provide an impartial assessment.

Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, evidence-based comments that help the editors assess the manuscript and help authors improve the quality of their work. The editors may seek additional reviews when the reports are conflicting, insufficiently detailed, or do not provide an adequate basis for a decision.

3. REVIEW EVALUATION CRITERIA

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts using criteria appropriate to the type of submission. These criteria may include:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope, particularly Islamic educational management and related fields.
  • Originality, novelty, and the significance of the research question or scholarly argument.
  • Engagement with relevant literature and an adequate explanation of the study's contribution to existing knowledge.
  • Appropriateness and transparency of the research design, methods, data collection, and analysis.
  • Accuracy, coherence, and consistency of the findings, interpretation, and conclusions.
  • Compliance with applicable research ethics requirements, including ethical approval or informed consent where relevant.
  • Quality of academic writing, organization, references, tables, figures, and compliance with the journal's author guidelines.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential concerns that affect the validity or credibility of a study and recommendations that would improve clarity, presentation, or completeness. Their comments should be specific, professional, and supported by reasoned academic judgment.

4. REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers provide comments and a recommendation to the editor. The possible recommendations are:

a. Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's requirements and requires no substantial revision before publication, although minor editorial adjustments may still be necessary.

b. Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially publishable after limited revisions, such as clarification of arguments, correction of presentation issues, or improvement of references and explanations.

c. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes to address significant concerns related to its analysis, methodology, interpretation, structure, or scholarly contribution. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

d. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or has fundamental weaknesses that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than automatically binding. The editor considers the substance and quality of the review reports, the manuscript's strengths and limitations, and the journal's editorial standards before making a decision.

5. EDITORIAL DECISION

Following the review process, the editor makes an editorial decision based on the reviewers' reports and an independent assessment of the manuscript. The decision may be acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

Where reviewer recommendations differ, the editor evaluates the reasoning and evidence presented in each report and may request additional advice when necessary. The editor is responsible for ensuring that the final decision is fair, consistent, and aligned with the journal's editorial policies.

Acceptance is granted only when the editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and ethical standards. A positive recommendation from a reviewer does not, by itself, guarantee acceptance. The journal also reserves the right to reject a manuscript if serious concerns arise during the editorial process.

6. REVISION AND AUTHOR RESPONSE

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts should address the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully. A revised submission should include a clear, point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. Where an author does not adopt a recommendation, the response should provide a reasoned explanation.

Authors should ensure that revisions are clearly identifiable and that the revised manuscript remains consistent with the journal's formatting and ethical requirements. Depending on the extent of the revisions, the editor may assess the revised manuscript directly or return it to the reviewers for further evaluation.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not automatically result in acceptance. The final decision depends on the adequacy of the revisions and the editor's assessment of whether the manuscript has met the required standards.

7. CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished manuscript content or use information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage. Manuscripts and review reports should not be shared with unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers should decline an invitation if they have a conflict of interest that could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, their impartiality. Any potential conflict should be disclosed to the editor as soon as it is identified. Editors must also manage conflicts of interest and, where necessary, arrange for an independent editor to handle the manuscript.

8. REVIEW INTEGRITY AND ETHICAL CONCERNS

The journal expects authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold high standards of research integrity and publication ethics. Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate authorship, or other potential misconduct will be assessed in accordance with the journal's publication ethics procedures.

If an ethical concern arises during review, the editor may request clarification or supporting information from the authors, consult appropriate experts, suspend the editorial process, or take other steps proportionate to the concern. Editorial decisions relating to such cases will be made carefully and fairly, with due regard for the available evidence.

9. REVIEW TIMELINES

The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional assessments, and the time required by authors to complete revisions. The editorial team seeks to manage submissions efficiently while allowing sufficient time for careful and constructive scholarly evaluation.

Authors can monitor the status of their submissions through the journal's OJS platform where status information is available. If a review is delayed, the editorial team may contact reviewers or invite alternative reviewers. The journal does not guarantee a fixed decision or publication date unless an official timeline is explicitly stated in its policies.

10. FINAL PUBLICATION

Manuscripts that receive final acceptance proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, and other applicable production stages. Authors may be asked to verify the accuracy of the final version before publication. Publication is subject to completion of the required editorial and production procedures.

The journal aims to publish work that makes a meaningful contribution to scholarship in Islamic educational management and related disciplines. Through a structured editorial assessment and peer-review process, Al-Mumtaz: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam seeks to promote academic rigor, fairness, transparency, and trust in scholarly communication.