All research manuscripts submitted to Az-Zarqa’: Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Islam undergo a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review. Authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities throughout the review process. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Before external peer review, the Editorial Team conducts an initial screening to ensure that the submission fits the journal’s aims and scope, follows basic submission requirements, and meets minimum scholarly and ethical standards. Manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical correction or declined at this stage when they are clearly out of scope or fail to meet essential requirements.

Reviewers are asked to provide an objective, evidence-based assessment and constructive recommendations to improve the manuscript. The review focuses on (but is not limited to): originality and contribution to the field; clarity of research problem and argumentation; adequacy and currency of references; methodological appropriateness (where applicable); coherence of analysis and conclusions; accuracy of facts and citations; and overall readability and academic writing quality.

Ethical standards for reviewers (COPE-aligned)
Az-Zarqa expects reviewers to follow the ethical principles outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, including: reviewing only when they have appropriate expertise and can deliver the report on time; declaring any competing interests and declining the review when conflicts could compromise impartiality; maintaining strict confidentiality of all manuscript materials; avoiding bias based on nationality, beliefs, gender, institutional affiliation, or other characteristics; and not contacting authors directly without the journal’s permission. Reviewers should promptly alert the editors if they suspect plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research practice, or other forms of misconduct, and must not conduct personal investigations outside the journal process.

Use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in peer review
Manuscripts and peer-review reports are confidential documents. Reviewers must not upload, copy, or process any part of a submitted manuscript (or its supplementary files) in generative-AI tools for analysis, summarization, or content evaluation, as this may breach confidentiality and data protection. Limited AI use is permitted only for minor technical support (e.g., grammar checking or language polishing) and must not involve uploading the full content of the manuscript or the full review report. Any permitted limited use must be disclosed to the Editorial Board when submitting the review. Violations may result in removal from the reviewer database and other actions determined by the Editorial Board.

Editorial decision
After receiving reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief (or delegated handling editor) makes the final decision. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision, but the editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal. Decisions may include: accept; minor revision (Revision Required); major revision (Resubmit for Review); or reject. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when necessary.

Please read some technical guidelines here
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Gen AI Policy (reviewers)