Peer Review Procces

Jurnal Pendidikan dan Studi Islam (PISI) applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of every manuscript considered for publication. In the double-blind review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

The peer-review process is designed to provide an objective and constructive assessment of submitted manuscripts while supporting authors in improving the academic quality of their work.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. Authors are required to ensure that their manuscripts comply with the journal's Author Guidelines, manuscript template, ethical requirements, and submission policies.

The submitted manuscript should contain sufficient information regarding the research background, objectives, methodology, findings, analysis, and contribution.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration.

The initial screening evaluates:

  • Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope
  • Originality and relevance of the manuscript
  • Compliance with the journal's formatting requirements
  • Completeness of the manuscript
  • Quality and clarity of the research problem
  • Adequacy of the methodology
  • Academic quality of the manuscript
  • Ethical compliance
  • Potential plagiarism or excessive textual similarity
  • Compliance with authorship and submission requirements

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected at the editorial screening stage.

3. Plagiarism and Similarity Checking

Before peer review, submitted manuscripts may undergo plagiarism or similarity screening using appropriate plagiarism-detection software.

The purpose of similarity checking is to identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, excessive textual overlap, or inappropriate reuse of previously published material.

A similarity result is not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision. The editorial team evaluates the context and nature of any detected similarity before determining the appropriate action.

4. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers who have relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

PISI seeks reviewers based on:

  • Academic expertise
  • Research experience
  • Relevant scholarly publications
  • Methodological competence
  • Knowledge of the manuscript's research topic
  • Independence from the authors

Reviewers should not have a personal, institutional, financial, or professional relationship with the authors that could compromise their objectivity.

5. Double-Blind Review

PISI uses a double-blind peer-review system.

Under this system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently.
  • Authors are expected to respond professionally to reviewer comments.

The editorial team takes reasonable measures to maintain reviewer and author confidentiality throughout the review process.

6. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on several academic criteria, including:

A. Originality and Novelty

  • Does the manuscript present an original contribution?
  • Does it provide new findings, arguments, perspectives, or interpretations?
  • Is the contribution clearly distinguished from previous studies?

B. Relevance

  • Is the topic relevant to the journal's focus and scope?
  • Does the manuscript address an important educational or Islamic studies issue?

C. Research Problem and Objectives

  • Is the research problem clearly identified?
  • Are the research objectives clearly formulated?
  • Are the research questions or hypotheses appropriate?

D. Theoretical Foundation

  • Is the theoretical framework relevant?
  • Are key concepts clearly explained?
  • Does the manuscript engage critically with relevant scholarly literature?

E. Methodology

  • Is the research design appropriate?
  • Are data collection procedures sufficiently explained?
  • Is the sampling or selection strategy appropriate?
  • Are analytical procedures clearly described?
  • Is the methodology sufficiently rigorous and reproducible where applicable?

F. Results and Analysis

  • Are the findings clearly presented?
  • Do the results adequately address the research questions?
  • Is the analysis logically structured?
  • Are tables and figures appropriate and correctly interpreted?

G. Discussion

  • Does the discussion adequately interpret the findings?
  • Are the findings connected with relevant theories and previous studies?
  • Does the manuscript explain similarities, differences, and possible reasons for the findings?
  • Are theoretical and practical implications clearly discussed?

H. Conclusion

  • Does the conclusion correspond to the research findings?
  • Does it directly address the research objectives?
  • Does the manuscript clearly explain its contribution?

I. References

  • Are the references relevant and academically credible?
  • Are recent and appropriate scholarly sources included?
  • Are citations and references consistently formatted?

J. Academic Presentation

  • Is the manuscript clearly written?
  • Is the organization logical?
  • Is the academic language appropriate?
  • Are tables, figures, terminology, and references presented consistently?

7. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide a recommendation to the editorial team. Possible recommendations include:

  1. Accept
  2. Minor Revision
  3. Major Revision
  4. Revise and Resubmit
  5. Reject

The reviewer recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision is determined by the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor after considering the reviewers' comments, the manuscript's academic quality, and the journal's editorial policies.

8. Editorial Decision

Following the completion of peer review, the editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes an editorial decision.

The decision may be based on:

  • Quality and consistency of reviewer reports
  • Scientific and scholarly contribution
  • Methodological rigor
  • Originality
  • Relevance to the journal
  • Authors' responses to reviewer comments
  • Ethical considerations

In cases where reviewer recommendations substantially differ, the editor may seek an additional review before making a final decision.

9. Revision by Authors

When revisions are required, authors should carefully address all reviewer and editor comments.

Authors are expected to:

  • Revise the manuscript thoroughly.
  • Respond to each reviewer comment.
  • Explain how each comment has been addressed.
  • Provide an academic justification when a recommendation is not adopted.
  • Highlight or clearly indicate substantial changes where appropriate.
  • Submit the revised manuscript within the specified period.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

10. Second-Round or Subsequent Review

Manuscripts requiring substantial revision may undergo additional rounds of peer review.

The purpose of subsequent review is to determine whether:

  • Reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed.
  • Major methodological or theoretical weaknesses have been corrected.
  • The manuscript has reached the required academic standard.
  • The revised manuscript provides a stronger scholarly contribution.

The number of review rounds may vary depending on the complexity and quality of the manuscript.

11. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewer identities are kept confidential under the double-blind review system.

Reviewers must not:

  • Disclose their review assignment to others.
  • Share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals.
  • Use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal research.
  • Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.
  • Exploit information obtained through the review process.

All information obtained during peer review must be treated as confidential.

12. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their judgment.

A reviewer should decline the assignment if:

  • They have a close personal or professional relationship with the authors.
  • They work at the same institution as an author where this could affect impartiality.
  • They have a direct academic or financial interest in the research outcome.
  • They have previously collaborated closely with the authors in a manner that could compromise objectivity.
  • They believe they cannot provide an impartial assessment.

When a conflict of interest is identified, the editorial team may assign another reviewer.

13. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide:

  • Objective and constructive comments
  • Clear academic reasoning
  • Specific suggestions for improvement
  • Assessment based on scholarly evidence
  • Timely review reports
  • Appropriate confidentiality

Reviewers should focus on the quality of the manuscript rather than personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, nationality, religion, gender, or other characteristics of the authors.

14. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently based on academic and ethical considerations.

Editors should not make decisions based on:

  • Personal relationships
  • Institutional interests
  • Commercial considerations
  • Author reputation
  • Political considerations
  • Religious affiliation
  • Nationality
  • Gender
  • Personal preferences

The editorial team is responsible for maintaining the integrity and independence of the publication process.

15. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made based on a significant misunderstanding, procedural error, or inappropriate review may submit an appeal to the editorial office.

An appeal should:

  • Be submitted professionally.
  • Clearly explain the reason for the appeal.
  • Address specific editorial or reviewer concerns.
  • Provide evidence supporting the appeal where appropriate.

The editorial team will review the appeal and determine whether further evaluation is warranted. The journal's decision following an appeal may be final.

16. Ethical Concerns During Review

If reviewers or editors identify potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, fabricated data, falsified information, duplicate submission, inappropriate authorship, manipulated citations, or other forms of academic misconduct, the editorial team may investigate the matter.

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may:

  • Request clarification from the authors.
  • Request supporting documentation.
  • Suspend the review process.
  • Reject the manuscript.
  • Notify the relevant institution where appropriate.
  • Take corrective action after publication if misconduct is subsequently confirmed.

17. Estimated Review Timeline

PISI aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards. The duration of the review process may vary depending on:

  • Availability of suitable reviewers
  • Complexity of the manuscript
  • Reviewer response time
  • Number of revision rounds
  • Authors' response time
  • Editorial workload

Authors should understand that the journal prioritizes quality and integrity of peer review over speed of publication.

18. Final Acceptance and Production

A manuscript is accepted for publication only after the editorial team determines that it has met the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, and editorial requirements.

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage, which may include:

  • Language editing
  • Technical editing
  • Reference and citation checking
  • Formatting
  • Layout preparation
  • Author proofing
  • Final editorial checks

Authors may be asked to review the final proof before publication.

19. Final Publication Decision

The final decision to publish rests with the Editor-in-Chief and/or the authorized editorial team of PISI.

Peer review is an essential part of the editorial decision-making process, but reviewer recommendations do not automatically guarantee acceptance. The journal reserves the right to make the final decision based on the overall academic quality, relevance, originality, ethical compliance, and contribution of the manuscript.

Commitment to Quality

Jurnal Pendidikan dan Studi Islam (PISI) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, rigorous, and ethical peer-review process. Through the implementation of the double-blind review system, qualified reviewers, independent editorial judgment, and constructive scholarly feedback, PISI seeks to ensure that published articles meet high standards of academic quality and contribute meaningfully to the advancement of education and Islamic studies.