Peer Review Process

Syariah: Jurnal Hukum dan Pemikiran applies a double-anonymous peer review process. Authors do not know the identities of reviewers, and reviewers do not receive author identities during the review process (this rule since 2026).

Initial Editorial Assessment

Every manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team to determine whether it:

  • falls within the journal's focus and scope;
  • meets minimum scholarly and methodological standards;
  • complies with the Author Guidelines;
  • demonstrates sufficient originality and academic contribution;
  • contains appropriate references and declarations; and
  • raises any research integrity, plagiarism, ethical, or authorship concerns.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts passing editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewers should:

  • possess appropriate scholarly expertise;
  • have a demonstrable publication record in the relevant field;
  • be independent from the authors;
  • have no significant competing interest concerning the manuscript; and
  • provide substantive, objective, and constructive scholarly assessments.

Where reviewer reports substantially conflict or additional expertise is required, the editor may invite an additional reviewer.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts with particular attention to:

  • originality and significance;
  • clarity of the research problem;
  • adequacy of the literature review;
  • theoretical or conceptual contribution;
  • appropriateness and transparency of methodology;
  • quality of evidence and analysis;
  • depth of interpretation;
  • consistency between findings and conclusions;
  • relevance to the journal's scope;
  • ethical and research integrity issues; and
  • overall contribution to Islamic law and legal scholarship.

Review Timeline

The journal aims to conduct editorial screening within approximately 7–14 days following submission.

External reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within approximately 21–30 days.

Authors receiving a revision decision are normally given 14–30 days, depending on the extent of revision required.

These periods are targets rather than guarantees. Academic quality and research integrity take precedence over processing speed.

Editorial Decisions

Following review, the editorial decision may be:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision; or
  • Reject.

Acceptance is based on the quality of the manuscript and the satisfactory resolution of relevant reviewer and editor concerns.

No author is guaranteed publication, a particular review duration, or an acceptance letter before the editorial evaluation has been completed.

The journal does not operate a paid fast-track route.

Editorial Independence

Final editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

Reviewers advise the editors but do not determine publication independently.

Editor and Editorial Board Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, reviewers, or persons closely associated with the journal must undergo the same editorial standards as other manuscripts.

The editor-author must have no access to or involvement in the selection of reviewers, review correspondence, or final editorial decision.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts constitute confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished manuscript content, data, arguments, or ideas except as necessary for the legitimate editorial process.

Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, supplementary files, or confidential editorial correspondence to publicly accessible generative AI systems.

Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment.

Editorial decisions must be made by qualified human editors.