Peer-Review Process

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents and may not be disclosed or used for purposes unrelated to the review process.

Impartiality

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively on scholarly grounds without discrimination or irrelevant personal considerations.

Expertise

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise and their ability to evaluate the subject matter, methodology, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

Research Integrity

Reviewers are expected to identify concerns involving originality, citation practices, methodological integrity, ethical compliance, or possible research misconduct.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first examined by the Editorial Team to determine their conformity with the journal's focus and scope, author guidelines, academic standards, originality requirements, citation practices, and publication ethics. Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope or do not meet minimum scholarly standards may be declined without external review.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor, who selects reviewers with suitable expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest that could reasonably compromise the independence or fairness of their assessment.

Double-Blind Review

The manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to the author, and author identities are withheld from reviewers to the extent reasonably possible. Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, evidence-based, and academically reasoned assessments of the manuscript.

Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript with particular attention to:

• Originality and significance of the research;
• Clarity of the research problem and objectives;
• Engagement with relevant and current literature;
• Appropriateness and transparency of the research methodology;
• Quality and depth of analysis;
• Consistency between findings, discussion, and conclusions;
• Contribution to Islamic law and society scholarship;
• Accuracy and adequacy of references and legal sources;
• Quality of academic writing and organization; and
• Compliance with principles of research and publication ethics.

Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the evaluation, reviewers normally provide one of the following recommendations:

Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not automatically determine, the editorial decision. The handling editor and Editor-in-Chief consider the reviewers' reports, the quality of the manuscript, and its suitability for PJILS. Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review or make a reasoned editorial judgment.

Revision by the Author

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must respond carefully to reviewer and editorial comments. A revised manuscript should normally be accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how each recommendation has been addressed. Where the author disagrees with a reviewer comment, an academic justification should be provided.

Re-Review and Final Decision

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the handling editor or returned to the original reviewers, particularly where major revisions have been requested. Additional rounds of revision may be required. Final acceptance is granted only when the manuscript satisfactorily meets the journal's scholarly, ethical, and editorial standards.