Peer-Review Process

Jurnal Moderasi: The Journal of Ushuluddin, Islamic Thought, and Muslim Societies
Faculty of Ushuluddin and Islamic Thought, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta

1. Initial Review

All submitted manuscripts are screened by the editorial office to assess their compliance with the journal’s author guidelines, publication ethics, and submission requirements. Manuscripts that require technical corrections may be returned to the authors for revision before further assessment.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates whether each manuscript aligns with the journal’s focus and scope, demonstrates adequate scholarly quality, and offers a relevant contribution to the field. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external peer review. Such decisions are subject to the journal’s editorial procedures.

Receipt of a manuscript is acknowledged by the editorial office, normally within 12–24 hours. This acknowledgement confirms receipt only and does not indicate acceptance for peer review or publication.

2. Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial review are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Jurnal Moderasi applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another throughout the review process.

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, scholarly qualifications, and ability to provide an objective assessment. Editorial board members may serve as reviewers when appropriate, provided that they have no conflicts of interest.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and decline assignments when their impartiality may reasonably be questioned. Relevant circumstances include:

  • Recent co-authorship or other close research collaboration with one or more authors.

  • Current institutional affiliation or professional relationships that may compromise impartiality.

  • A current or previous supervisory relationship between the reviewer and an author, where this may affect objectivity.

  • Personal relationships or disputes that could influence the review.

  • Financial or other interests that could benefit from the manuscript’s acceptance or rejection.

Previous collaboration or participation in the same academic event does not automatically constitute a conflict of interest. Such circumstances must be assessed in context, and reviewers must disclose any relationship that could reasonably affect their judgment.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, provide constructive and evidence-based feedback, maintain confidentiality, and avoid using unpublished material for personal advantage.

The standard peer-review period is up to six weeks, subject to reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. If delays occur, the editorial office may contact reviewers, appoint replacements, or inform authors of the revised timeline.

3. Editorial Decisions and Revisions

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s scholarly quality, relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, ethical compliance, and reviewers’ recommendations. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the final editorial decision.

Following peer review, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision and proceeds to copyediting and production.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited revisions to address reviewers’ or editors’ comments. Authors are normally given one week to submit the revised manuscript and a point-by-point response.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication. Authors are normally given up to three weeks to revise the manuscript and provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. If a comment is not adopted, the authors should provide a clear scholarly justification.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. Major revision does not guarantee acceptance, and the editor may request further revisions or reject the manuscript if the concerns remain unresolved.

Reject

The manuscript is rejected when it falls outside the journal’s scope, does not meet the required scholarly standards, contains serious methodological or ethical problems, or fails to make a sufficient scholarly contribution. A rejected manuscript will not ordinarily be reconsidered in the same submission process. Authors may submit a substantially revised manuscript as a new submission only when permitted by the editorial office.

Authors must respond to reviewer comments point by point and clearly identify the changes made in the revised manuscript. Any disagreement with a reviewer’s recommendation must be explained respectfully and supported by scholarly reasoning.

4. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision in accordance with the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy. An appeal must provide specific grounds for reconsideration, such as a significant procedural error, a factual misunderstanding, or an undisclosed conflict of interest that may have affected the decision.

The appeal will be assessed by an editor or another qualified editorial representative who is not directly involved in the disputed decision, where practicable. Additional expert advice may be sought when necessary.

Submitting an appeal does not guarantee a change in the original decision. The outcome will be communicated to the authors, and the decision following the appeal will normally be final within the journal’s editorial process.

5. Production and Publication

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds through copyediting, language editing where necessary, author proofreading, final corrections, and typesetting. Authors are responsible for checking the accuracy of the final proofs within the timeframe specified by the editorial office.

Articles are published through the journal’s online platform:

https://ejournal.uin-suka.ac.id/ushuluddin/moderasi/index

Jurnal Moderasi is published biannually. The timing of online publication and print distribution, where applicable, follows the journal’s publication schedule and production arrangements.

6. Post-Publication Corrections

Jurnal Moderasi is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. Authors who identify a significant error in a published article should promptly contact the editorial office and provide a clear explanation of the error and the proposed correction.

Requests for corrections will be assessed by the editorial team according to their nature and significance. Depending on the circumstances, the journal may publish a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction in accordance with its publication ethics policies.

Post-publication corrections are not restricted to a one-week period. Requests will be considered whenever a credible concern about the accuracy or integrity of the scholarly record is identified.

For questions regarding the peer-review process, authors may contact:

Editorial Office
Jurnal Moderasi: The Journal of Ushuluddin, Islamic Thought, and Muslim Societies
Faculty of Ushuluddin and Islamic Thought
Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Email: jurnalmoderasi@uin-suka.ac.id