Peer Review Process

Jurnal Pendidikan Islam Azzahro (JPIA) implements a double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, and integrity of all manuscripts submitted for publication. In this system, the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process to maintain objectivity and fairness.

Each manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes the following stages of evaluation:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

After a manuscript is submitted through the journal’s online submission system, the editorial team conducts an initial screening. This stage aims to ensure that the manuscript fits within the focus and scope of the journal, follows the author guidelines, and meets the basic standards of academic writing.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s requirements or are outside the scope of the journal may be rejected at this stage without being sent for peer review.

2. Plagiarism Screening

All manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be checked for similarity using plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin or similar tools. The journal applies strict policies to prevent plagiarism and academic misconduct.

Manuscripts with a high similarity index or evidence of plagiarism may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected.

3. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial checks are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic.

The assignment of reviewers is managed by the Editor or Section Editor through the journal management system.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

JPIA applies a double-blind review system, where the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure an unbiased evaluation process.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several important aspects, including:

  • Relevance of the topic to the field of Islamic Education

  • Originality and scholarly contribution

  • Clarity of research objectives and research questions

  • Appropriateness of research methodology

  • Quality of analysis and discussion

  • Adequacy and relevance of references

  • Clarity, coherence, and academic writing quality

Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommendations to the editor regarding the manuscript.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor makes a final decision regarding the manuscript. The possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept Submission

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject Submission

The final decision on the manuscript is made by the Editor after considering the reviewers’ comments and recommendations.

6. Revision by Authors

If revisions are required, authors are requested to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments within a specified time frame. Authors are expected to clearly address the reviewers’ suggestions and submit the revised version of the manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the reviewers for further evaluation if necessary.

7. Final Decision and Acceptance

After the manuscript has met the journal’s academic standards and all necessary revisions have been completed satisfactorily, the Editor will issue a final decision of acceptance.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage.

8. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts undergo several editorial processes including copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading to ensure clarity, consistency, and formatting accuracy before publication.

The final version of the article will then be published in the journal issue.

9. Publication Ethics and Confidentiality

All parties involved in the publication process (editors, reviewers, and authors) are expected to adhere to the principles of publication ethics. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts and must not use any information obtained during the review process for personal advantage.

Any potential conflict of interest must be declared by reviewers and editors.

Estimated Review Time

The average time required for the peer review process is approximately 4–8 weeks, depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers.