Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Islamic Philanthropy and Social Finance (JIPSF) employs a double-anonymised peer-review process to ensure the independent, objective and impartial evaluation of all submitted manuscripts. The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

JIPSF is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing and research integrity. The journal follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and editors and reviewers are expected to adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewer Selection

Following the initial editorial assessment, manuscripts considered suitable for publication are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.

Authors may recommend potential reviewers during submission; however, the selection of reviewers is made solely at the discretion of the Editor. The journal may accept or decline author recommendations and will not appoint reviewers where conflicts of interest are identified.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • originality, novelty and scholarly significance;
  • relevance to the aims and scope of JIPSF;
  • methodological rigour and research design;
  • quality and interpretation of data, analysis and findings;
  • validity of the conclusions;
  • adequacy and accuracy of references and citations;
  • compliance with ethical and research integrity standards; and
  • overall contribution to knowledge and practice in Islamic philanthropy, social finance and related fields.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, objective and evidence-based comments that assist both the authors and the editor in improving and evaluating the manuscript.

Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editor's independent assessment of the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the final decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision;
  • Reject and Resubmit; or
  • Reject.

Authors submitting revised manuscripts should address all reviewer comments and provide a detailed response explaining how each comment has been considered.

Review Timeline

JIPSF aims to complete the initial peer-review process within 2 to 4 weeks. However, the review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, the quality of the submitted manuscript and the extent of revisions required.

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and must not disclose or use unpublished information obtained during the peer-review process.

Reviewers are required to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline review invitations where such conflicts exist or where they lack the necessary expertise to provide an objective assessment.

Authors, reviewers and editors must declare any competing interests that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, the editorial or peer-review process. Where a conflict of interest is identified, JIPSF will take appropriate measures to ensure an independent, fair and unbiased editorial decision.