Peer Review Policy | Al-Mazaahib: Jurnal Perbandingan Hukum

All research articles or book reviews submitted to this journal will undergo a double-blind peer-review process. Both research articles and book reviews are reviewed by at least two external qualified experts. Reviewers provide valuable scholarly comments to improve the content of the manuscript.

Double-Blind Peer Review
In the review process, the authors and reviewers do not know each other.

Peer Review Process

Al-Mazaahib: Jurnal Perbandingan Hukum applies a rigorous double-blind peer review system to ensure the highest standards of academic quality, objectivity, and integrity.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated solely based on their scholarly merit — without regard to the authors’ gender, institutional affiliation, nationality, or religious and political views.

1. Review Type and Reviewer Independence

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review cycle.

Every manuscript is reviewed by at least two external reviewers who have relevant academic expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.

Reviewers must be independent of the journal’s editorial board and have no conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions.

The editorial team ensures that the selection of reviewers is based solely on scholarly competence and professional reputation.

2. Role of the Editor

Editors are responsible for managing the peer review process, including the selection and invitation of appropriate external reviewers.

Editors do not act as reviewers for manuscripts submitted to their own journal.

Editorial decisions are made based on reviewers’ comments, originality, methodological rigor, and the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s focus and scope.

The Editor-in-Chief has the final responsibility for acceptance, revision, or rejection decisions, made objectively and transparently.

3. Review Criteria

Each submission is evaluated according to the following criteria:

Originality and significance of the research.

Relevance to the field of Islamic legal and comparative studies.

Soundness of methodology and argumentation.

Quality of data analysis and interpretation.

Clarity, structure, and adherence to author guidelines.

Contribution to knowledge and relevance to current scholarly debates.

4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from sharing or discussing manuscript content with anyone outside the review process, except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.

5. Conflict of Interest Declaration

Reviewers must immediately declare any potential conflicts of interest, whether financial, institutional, or personal, before agreeing to review.

If a conflict exists, reviewers must decline the review invitation.

Editors are also required to avoid assigning manuscripts to reviewers with any competing interests.

The journal adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (2017) in managing conflicts of interest and maintaining transparency.

6. Review Timeline

The standard peer review process takes approximately 4–6 weeks, depending on the availability and responsiveness of reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluation within the given time frame and provide clear, constructive, and objective comments.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal a review decision may submit a written request to the Editor-in-Chief, providing specific reasons for reconsideration.

Appeals are reviewed by an independent member of the editorial team or an external advisor.

The decision following an appeal is final.

Complaints about ethical misconduct during peer review will be handled according to COPE Core Practices.

8. The Use of AI Tools

Reviewers and editors are prohibited from using generative AI or AI-assisted tools to read, analyze, or summarize manuscripts, in order to preserve confidentiality and maintain the integrity of human scholarly judgment.

9. Ethical Reference

This peer review policy is developed and implemented in accordance with:

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (2017) — https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers

Reviewer Guideline in Al-Mazaahib: Jurnal Perbandingan Hukum

Several Parameters for Evaluating Manuscript:

Are the data and information on the manuscript is a new and original?
Does the manuscript can contribute significant to advancing science?
Is a similar material has been published elsewhere?
Is the substance of the manuscript more suitable in other journals?
Does the reference current or up to date and completely mention on the manuscript?
Methods part on the manuscript is align with the aim of research?
The author presents the manuscript clearly and easy to be read?
Are there any errors of fact and calculations?
Are tables on the manuscript present data clearly and concisely?
Are all necessary illustrations needed on the manuscript?
Is the abstract written in concisely?
Is the title of the manuscript can represent the content of manuscript?
Is the grammar and spelling on the manuscript meet the standards?

Role and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Ensure the rigorous standards of the scientific process by taking part in the peer-review system.
Uphold the journal's integrity by identifying invalid research and helping to maintain the journal's quality.
Fulfil a sense of obligation to the community and their area of research.
Establish relationships with reputable colleagues and their affiliated journals, and increase their opportunities to join an Editorial Board.
It can help prevent ethical breaches by identifying plagiarism, research fraud, and other problems by dinting their familiarity with the subject area.
Reciprocate professional courtesy, as authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles – as a reviewer, researchers "repay" the same consideration they receive as authors.

Review Article Text Parameters

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

Abstract

Is it a summary?
Does it include key findings?
Is it an appropriate length?

Introduction

Is it effective, clear and well organized?
Does it introduce and put into perspective what follows?
Suggest changes in organization and point authors to appropriate citations.
Be specific - do not write “the authors have done a poor job.”

Methodology

Can a colleague reproduce the experiments and get the same outcomes?
Did the authors include proper references to previously published methodology?
Is the description of the new methodology accurate?
Could or should the authors have included supplementary material?

Results

Does the result contain result and finding??

Analysis and Discussion

Suggest improvements in the way data is shown
Comment on general logic and justification of interpretations and conclusions
Comment on the number of figures, tables and schemes Write concisely and precisely which changes you recommend List separately suggested changes in style, grammar and other small changes
Suggest additional experiments or analyses
Make clear the need for changes/updates
Ask yourself whether the manuscript should be published at all

Conclusion