Peer Review Process

TANQIH: Journal of Islamic Law applies a rigorous peer-review process to maintain the quality, originality, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution of published articles.

* The journal generally employs a double-blind peer-review system, whereby the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team. The screening assesses:

• relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
• compliance with author guidelines;
• manuscript structure and academic presentation;
• originality;
• basic methodological quality; and
• potential ethical concerns.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected at this stage.

2. Plagiarism and Similarity Checking

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening may undergo plagiarism or similarity checking.

The editorial team evaluates similarity results contextually and does not rely solely on a similarity percentage when determining whether problematic plagiarism exists.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to reviewers with relevant expertise in Islamic law or related fields.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise and the subject matter of the submitted manuscript.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

• originality;
• relevance;
• clarity of research questions;
• theoretical foundation;
• research methodology;
• quality of legal analysis;
• engagement with relevant Islamic legal sources;
• quality of argumentation;
• relevance and adequacy of references;
• contribution to Islamic legal scholarship; and
• clarity of conclusions.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Accept with Minor Revisions
• Revise and Resubmit
• Reject

The final decision regarding publication is made by the editor.

6. Revision

Authors whose manuscripts require revision must respond appropriately to reviewers' comments and submit a revised version within the specified period.

Where necessary, authors may be required to provide a response document explaining how the reviewers' comments have been addressed.

7. Final Evaluation

The revised manuscript may be returned to reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions required.

8. Publication

Manuscripts that have successfully completed the review and revision process proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout, and publication.

* The editorial team retains the final authority regarding publication.