Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers play a critical role in safeguarding the quality, rigor, and integrity of research published in the Journal of Islamic Studies and Research on Arabic (JISRA). JISRA operates a double-blind peer-review system, where both author and reviewer identities remain strictly confidential. These guidelines outline the expectations, ethical responsibilities, and key criteria for peer reviewers assisting our editorial board.

1. Ethical Responsibilities & Standards

Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts are privileged, confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, quote, or distribute any part of a manuscript with third parties, nor use unpublished content for their own research or gain.
Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must recuse themselves immediately if they suspect a conflict of interest—whether financial, collaborative, competitive, or institutional—with any of the authors or associated entities.
Objectivity & Professionalism: Evaluation must be conducted impartially. Criticisms should be constructive, academic, and backed by clear evidence or theoretical reasoning. Ad hominem or derogatory remarks are strictly unacceptable.
Promptness: Reviewers should accept invitations only if they can complete the evaluation within the designated timeframe (typically 2 to 3 weeks). If unexpected delays occur, reviewers must notify the editorial office immediately.
Detection of Ethical Violations: Reviewers must alert the Editor-in-Chief if they notice substantial overlap or similarity with previously published works (suspected plagiarism/text recycling), uncredited sources, questionable research ethics involving human participants, or suspected AI-generated text manipulation.

2. Core Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider and address the following structural elements:

Originality & Relevance: Does the paper present novel insights, critical approaches, or new data relevant to Islamic studies, Arabic linguistics, language pedagogy, educational technology, or pesantren studies?
Title & Abstract: Is the title concise and representative? Does the abstract clearly state the research problem, methodology, primary findings, and key conclusion?
Theoretical & Methodological Rigor: Is the theoretical framework appropriate? Is the research design, qualitative/quantitative approach, or textual/hermeneutical methodology sound, clearly explained, and rigorously applied?
Results & Discussion: Are the analytical arguments logical, well-structured, and supported by empirical evidence or authoritative classical/contemporary sources? Is the discussion contextualized within existing scholarly literature?
Conclusion & Implications: Do the conclusions logically align with the presented evidence? Are the theoretical or practical contributions clearly stated?
Literary Quality & References: Is the writing clear, concise, and academic in tone (English, Arabic, or Indonesian)? Are citations and references up-to-date (80% primary sources from the last 5–10 years) and formatted according to APA 7th Edition?

3. Structuring the Review Report

Reviewers submit their reports directly through the Open Journal System (OJS) dashboard. A thorough review report should comprise three key parts:

General Summary: A brief (1–2 paragraph) overview of the manuscript’s central purpose, scope, and key contributions to the field.
Major Comments: Detailed feedback regarding core intellectual, structural, or methodological issues (e.g., flawed methodology, missing literature, weak arguments, or unclear data interpretation).
Minor Comments: Feedback on formatting, typographical errors, minor textual clarifications, figure/table improvements, or citation fixes.

4. Final Editorial Recommendations

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers are required to select one of the following recommendations on OJS:

Accept Submission: The manuscript is ready for publication with negligible or no edits.
Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor revisions (formatting, minor textual adjustments, or small additions) before publication, which will be verified by the handling editor.
Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires major theoretical, methodological, or structural changes and must undergo a second round of peer review after revision.
Decline Submission: The manuscript suffers from fatal methodological flaws, lack of originality, severe structural weaknesses, or falls entirely outside the journal’s focus and scope.

For questions regarding the review portal, assigned manuscripts, or review timelines, please contact the editorial team at ojs.branda@gmail.com.