Peer Review Process

The journal employs double-blind peer review: the authors’ identities are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors. The review process aims to assess the validity, originality, methodological rigour, quality of analysis, scientific contribution, research ethics, and suitability for the journal’s scope.

1. Editorial screening: checking the scope, completeness, language, format, initial integrity, declarations and similarity.
2. Reviewer assignment: the editor appoints at least two independent reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the topic of the manuscript.
3. Substantive review: the reviewer assesses the manuscript critically and provides actionable feedback.
4. Author revision: the author has addressed all comments via the ‘response to reviewers’ and a version with tracked changes.
5. Re-review if necessary: the manuscript may be returned to the same reviewer or to additional reviewers.
6. Editorial decision: The Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor makes the final decision based on scientific evidence and reviewers’ recommendations, rather than automatically following the reviewers’ votes.

• possess expertise relevant to the focus of the manuscript and a verifiable publication record;
• come from a variety of institutions and are not part of the editorial team for the manuscript under review;
• has no actual or perceived conflict of interest;
• The identities and affiliations of reviewers displayed on the journal’s website must be valid, subject to the reviewers’ consent, and the reviewers must be genuinely and actively involved.

The target completion time for the initial review is 21 calendar days from the date the reviewer receives the invitation. Reviewers who are unable to meet this deadline are asked to notify the editor immediately so that the manuscript can be reassigned. This deadline is a service target and should not be used to promise a swift decision or the acceptance of the manuscript.

• the novelty and significance of the issue;
• the validity of the theory and the literature review;
• clarity of the question/objective/hypothesis;
• the accuracy of the design, data, analytical techniques and reproducibility;
• consistency between the results, discussion and conclusions;
• research ethics, data, citations and conflicts of interest;
• the quality of tables and figures, and the adequacy of supporting information;
• the relevance and implications for the Islamic economy, finance and business.

Recommendations may be ‘Accept’, ‘Minor Revision’, ‘Major Revision’ or ‘Reject’. The editor may request a third reviewer if the two assessments differ substantially or if additional expertise is required.