Peer Review

The E-Journal of Islamic Thought & Understanding (E-JITU) employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure the independent, objective, and impartial evaluation of submitted manuscripts. The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

E-JITU is committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly quality, academic integrity, and fairness in the peer review process. The journal follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and reviewers are expected to conduct reviews in accordance with established ethical standards.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers; and
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

The peer review process is designed to ensure fairness, academic rigour, and unbiased evaluation of scholarly work.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff are required to maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and all related communications throughout the peer review and editorial decision-making process.

Authors are required to submit two manuscript versions:

  • Anonymous Manuscript – containing no author-identifying information for peer review; and
  • Complete Manuscript – containing the authors’ names, affiliations, corresponding author details, and other required information for editorial use.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor to determine whether they meet the journal’s basic requirements, including:

  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • originality and scholarly contribution;
  • methodological and conceptual quality;
  • clarity and academic writing quality; and
  • compliance with the journal’s submission requirements.

Manuscripts may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected at this stage if they do not meet the journal’s basic scholarly, ethical, or submission requirements.

All submissions are also subject to similarity screening in accordance with the journal’s Plagiarism Policy and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement prior to peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and relevance to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, or research presented in the manuscript.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on relevant scholarly criteria, including:

  • originality, novelty, and scholarly significance;
  • relevance to the aims and scope of E-JITU;
  • methodological rigour and research design;
  • quality and interpretation of data, analysis, and findings;
  • validity of the conclusions;
  • clarity and organisation of the manuscript;
  • adequacy and accuracy of references and citations;
  • compliance with ethical and research integrity standards; and
  • overall contribution to knowledge and the relevant field of study.

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.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process;
  • provide an objective and constructive evaluation;
  • identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors where appropriate;
  • notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap with other published work;
  • disclose any conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality; and
  • complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers who feel unqualified to review a manuscript or are unable to provide a review within the required timeframe should notify the editor and decline the review invitation.

6. Peer Review Outcomes

Following the peer review process, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly and editorial standards and is suitable for publication.
  • Revisions Required: Minor revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.
  • Resubmit for Review: Major revisions are required, and the revised manuscript should undergo another round of peer review.
  • Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript does not sufficiently fit the journal’s aims, scope, or publication requirements.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scholarly, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editor.

7. Revision and Re-Review

Where revisions are required, authors are expected to address the reviewers’ comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript within fourteen (14) days from the date of the revision request.

The revised manuscript should address all relevant comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and/or the editor and should comply with the latest E-JITU manuscript template and submission requirements.

Where substantial revisions are required, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. The editor may request additional revisions where necessary before making a final decision.

If additional time is required, authors may request an extension from the Editor-in-Chief before the revision deadline. Extension requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

8. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related materials are treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, use, or distribute any part of the manuscript or review materials without permission from the editor.

All parties involved in the peer review process are expected to comply with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Conflict of Interest Policy, Plagiarism Policy, and other relevant publication policies.

9. Review Duration

The duration of the peer review process depends on the availability and responsiveness of the reviewers. Typically, the peer review process takes approximately 2 weeks to 1 month.

The duration may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, the availability of suitable reviewers, and the number of review rounds required.

10. Final Report and Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports and recommendations, together with any revisions made by the authors, the editor will make the final decision on whether to accept, request further revision, or reject the manuscript.

The final decision will be communicated to the corresponding author through the journal’s submission system or by email. The editorial decision is made independently based on the manuscript’s scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and compliance with the journal’s requirements.