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. 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