Reviewer Guidelines

General Guidance

All submitted manuscripts are assessed by the editors for suitability for the review process. Manuscripts may be sent to members of the Advisory Editorial Board for further input. To save authors' and reviewers' time, only manuscripts judged most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent out for formal review.

Manuscripts that are sent for peer review typically go to three reviewers. Based on their advice, the editor decides to accept the manuscript, with or without minor revision; invite the authors to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached; or reject the manuscript, typically on the grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advancement, or major technical and/or interpretational problems.

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rankings. Rather, they are based on an evaluation of the strengths of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors. The most useful reviewer reports, therefore, are those that set out clear and substantiated arguments.

Transparent Review Process

USRATY: Journal of Islamic Family Law makes the editorial process transparent for all accepted manuscripts by publishing reviewer reports alongside published papers, as well as relevant correspondence between authors and editors concerning the decision-making process.

Reviewer anonymity will be strictly maintained.

Reviewers should note that their reports, as well as the authors' point-by-point responses, will be included in this document. Factually incorrect statements should be avoided, and arguments in favour of or against a given study should be justified. We also encourage reviewers to be very clear about what revisions will be required for a manuscript to become acceptable. It should be clear to both the author and the editor how to proceed without the need for additional consultation.

To further ensure a transparent editorial process, USRATY: Journal of Islamic Family Law does not require "confidential comments to the editor." However, urgent issues that cannot be included in the reviewer report, particularly concerns about ethical standards, data integrity, or academic or commercial conflicts of interest, should be communicated directly to the editor via email.

To enhance the consistency of the peer-review process, the editors may provide reviewers with an opportunity to comment on each other's reports before making a final decision. This allows differing opinions to be considered carefully and potential errors to be identified at an early stage.

Reviewer Selection and Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewer selection is based on a balance of factors, including expertise, scientific reputation, and previous experience with the reviewer. Manuscripts are sent to reviewers only after they have been contacted regarding the possibility of reviewing the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to treat this initial request as confidential.

USRATY: Journal of Islamic Family Law is committed to timely editorial decisions and publication, as efficiency in this process is a valuable service to both authors and the academic community. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly or inform the editorial office if they anticipate a significant delay. This allows the authors to be kept informed and, where necessary, enables the journal to identify alternative reviewers.

To avoid unnecessary delays in processing manuscripts, please do the following immediately upon receipt of a manuscript for review:

  • Double-check the deadline and contact the editorial office immediately if you anticipate any difficulties in meeting it.

  • Consider whether there might be a conflict of interest (see the guidelines below) and whether you can evaluate the manuscript impartially.

Reviewers should treat the review process with strict confidentiality and should keep the following guidelines in mind:

  • Manuscripts should not be discussed with anyone who is not directly involved in the review process.

  • If colleagues are consulted, they should be identified to the editors.

  • If experts from outside the reviewer's institution are consulted, reviewers should check with the editors beforehand to avoid involving anyone who may have been excluded by the authors or editor.

  • Reviewers should not disclose their identities to authors or other colleagues. If reviewers feel strongly about making their identities known to the authors, they should do so through the editor and may also choose to sign their report.

  • The journal strongly disapproves of any attempt by authors to determine the identities of reviewers or to confront them. Reviewers are encouraged neither to confirm nor to deny any speculation regarding their identities.

Co-Reviewers

We encourage reviewers to ask a senior member of their institution or research group to co-review a manuscript. Co-reviewing means that the co-reviewer is supervised to provide an authoritative and professional reviewer report, and the primary reviewer explicitly agrees with all points raised by the co-reviewer.

Co-reviewing with other senior colleagues, for example, to complement specific expertise, may be possible but requires prior consultation with the editor, as the proposed co-reviewer may have been excluded by the authors.

Co-reviewers must be identified in the designated field of the reviewer form.

Review Report Formatting

The primary purpose of reviewer reports is to provide editors with the information they need to reach a decision. Reviewer reports should also guide authors on how to strengthen their manuscripts if revision is possible.

Reviewers are asked to maintain a critical, constructive, and impartial attitude when evaluating manuscripts. Criticism should remain objective and professional; offensive language is not acceptable. A negative report should explain the weaknesses of the manuscript clearly so that authors can understand the basis for a decision to request revision or reject the manuscript.

Reviewer reports should generally follow the structure below:

Summary

  • Describe your understanding of the study.

  • What are the key conclusions, specific findings, and concepts?

  • What methodology and research approach were used in the study?

General Remarks

  • Are you convinced by the key conclusions?

  • Place the work within its relevant academic context.

  • What is the nature of the contribution, whether conceptual, methodological, empirical, doctrinal, or practical?

  • How does the contribution compare with previous knowledge or studies?

  • What audience or research community is likely to benefit from this study?

Major Points

  • Identify specific criticisms related to the key conclusions.

  • Specify the analyses, additional evidence, or revisions required to support the conclusions.

  • Support your critique with relevant citations and clear argumentation.

Minor Points

  • Identify issues that can be easily addressed.

  • Comment on presentation and writing style.

  • Identify typographical, grammatical, formatting, or other minor errors.

We do not suppress reviewer reports. On rare occasions, however, the journal may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information. Reviewers are therefore asked to avoid statements that may cause unnecessary offence while recognizing that substantive criticism is an essential part of the peer-review process.

Conflict of Interest

A competing interest exists if a reviewer:

  • is currently engaged in, is planning to engage in, or would consider engaging in related research that could benefit from unpublished information obtained from the manuscript under consideration;

  • has financial or commercial interests related to the manuscript;

  • has a previous personal or professional relationship with the authors; or

  • has any other relationship or connection that could compromise the reviewer's objectivity.

Any potential conflict of interest must be disclosed to the editor, regardless of the reviewer's level of support for the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to determine whether they have any competing interests based on the abstract and author list before accepting an invitation to review. Because editors cannot identify all potential conflicts or biases, prospective reviewers should alert the editors to anything that might affect the neutrality of their report and should decline the invitation if they feel unable to provide an objective assessment.

If a reviewer accepts an invitation and subsequently discovers a competing interest during the assessment of the manuscript, the reviewer must notify the editor immediately and permanently delete any manuscript files that have been accessed.

Examples of Situations That Should Be Discussed with the Editor

  • The author and reviewer have previously worked closely together, for example, in the same department or through professional collaboration.

  • The reviewer and author work at the same institution and have directly interacted. In large institutions, however, the same affiliation does not necessarily constitute a conflict if there has been no direct interaction.

  • The reviewer serves on a scientific advisory board that was involved in approving the author's research proposal or academic position.

  • The reviewer is an editor at a competing journal and has an interest in the manuscript being published in that journal.

  • Former advisors or mentors: It is recommended to avoid having a former advisor or advisee from the past 10 years review an author's work. Such cases should be discussed with the editor and assessed individually.

  • The reviewer has a strong prior disagreement with the conclusions, research approach, or work of a particular research group that may interfere with the reviewer's neutrality.

Despite efforts to identify breaches of publication policy or ethical conduct, such as plagiarism or conflicts of interest involving authors, reviewers with relevant expertise may be more likely to recognize such problems. Reviewers should therefore alert the editors to any potential ethical or publication-related concerns.

Reviewer Feedback and Credit

When reviewers are asked to re-review a manuscript that has been revised in response to their criticisms, they may receive copies of the other reviewers' comments.

Upon request, reviewers may be informed of the editorial decision and may receive copies of the other reviewer reports.

Reviewers whose recommendations are not followed by the editor should understand that this does not imply a lack of confidence in their judgment. It is not uncommon for experts to disagree, and in the absence of consensus, the editor must nevertheless reach a final decision.