Peer Review Process

Stage 1: Initial Desk Review (Screening)

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the Aims and Scope of JIBER (Islamic economics, business, finance, and related interdisciplinary fields).

  • Is original and has not been published previously or submitted elsewhere.

  • Adheres to the journal's formatting, referencing, and word-limit guidelines.

  • Passes the plagiarism screening with a similarity index below 20% (excluding bibliography).

Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements are desk-rejected within 3–5 working days, with a clear explanation provided to the authors. This ensures that authors receive a swift decision and can submit elsewhere without unnecessary delay.

Stage 2: Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the desk review are assigned to an Associate Editor or Section Editor, who identifies and invites at least two external reviewers with proven expertise in the manuscript's subject area.

Reviewer selection criteria include:

  • Active publication record in the relevant field.

  • No current or recent collaboration with the authors.

  • No personal, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest with the authors.

  • Willingness to provide a timely and constructive review.

Reviewers are invited via the journal's online submission system and are given a 2-week deadline to accept or decline the invitation. If a reviewer declines or fails to respond, the editor will invite an alternative reviewer.

Stage 3: The Double-Blind Review

Once reviewers accept the invitation, they receive the complete manuscript with all author-identifying information removed. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following core criteria:

 
 
Criteria Evaluation Questions
Originality & Contribution Does the research offer a novel contribution to Islamic economics/business theory or practice? Does it advance the existing body of knowledge?
Methodological Rigor Is the research design, data collection, and analysis appropriate and robust? Are the conclusions justified by the evidence?
Relevance to JIBER Scope Does the manuscript align with the journal's focus on Muamalah, Islamic finance, sustainable development, and contemporary business challenges?
Clarity & Presentation Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and free of language errors? Are figures and tables appropriately used?
Ethical Compliance Has the research adhered to ethical standards (informed consent, animal/human welfare, conflict of interest disclosure)?

Reviewers are also asked to assess the Maqasid al-Shariah (objectives of Islamic law) dimension where applicable, ensuring that the research promotes justice, welfare, and ethical values.

Reviewers provide:

  1. A confidential recommendation to the editor (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject).

  2. A detailed, constructive critique for the authors, including specific suggestions for improvement.

Stage 4: Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

 
 
Decision Definition
Accept The manuscript meets all standards and is accepted for publication as is (minor copyediting may still apply).
Minor Revision The manuscript requires small adjustments (e.g., clarification of data, additional citations, minor language fixes). A re-review is usually not required; the editor makes the final check.
Major Revision The manuscript requires substantial changes (e.g., additional analysis, restructuring, new literature). It will likely be sent back to the original reviewers for a second evaluation.
Reject The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for quality, originality, or scope. The decision is final but may include recommendations for resubmission to a more suitable journal.

The target time from submission to first decision is 4 to 6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability.

Stage 5: Revision and Resubmission

Authors are given a specific deadline (typically 2–4 weeks for minor revisions and 4–8 weeks for major revisions) to revise their manuscript.

When resubmitting, authors must include:

  1. A point-by-point response letter addressing every comment raised by the reviewers and the editor (even if they disagree with a comment, they must provide a reasoned justification).

  2. A revised manuscript with all changes clearly highlighted (using track changes or colored text) to facilitate easy verification.

Stage 6: Final Decision and Post-Review

  • After receiving the revised manuscript, the editor (and/or the original reviewers for major revisions) evaluate whether the authors have adequately addressed all concerns.

  • If satisfactory, the manuscript is accepted and forwarded to the production team for copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading.

  • If concerns remain, the editor may request additional revisions or, in rare cases, reject the manuscript.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CONFIDENTIALITY

  • Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts if they have any personal, professional, or financial relationship with the authors.

  • Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and decline the review invitation if such conflicts exist.

  • All submitted manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing, discussing, or using any part of the manuscript for their own research or personal gain.

  • Reviewers may not contact the authors directly; all communication must be channeled through the editorial office.

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND OVERSIGHT

  • The editorial board regularly evaluates reviewer performance to ensure timeliness, depth, and constructiveness of reports.

  • In cases where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may consult a third independent reviewer to reach a final decision.

  • All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism both at submission and before publication using Turnitin.

5. AUTHOR APPEALS

If authors believe that the editorial decision was unjust or that reviewers overlooked significant aspects of their work, they may submit a formal appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must:

  • Clearly state the reasons for disagreement.

  • Provide substantive evidence to counter the reviewers' or editors' critiques.

All appeals will be reviewed objectively by the editorial board. The final appeal decision is binding and will be communicated within 2 weeks of receiving the appeal.

6. POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW AND CORRECTIONS

JIBER encourages post-publication dialogue. Readers may submit comments or concerns about published articles to the editorial office. If substantive errors or ethical issues are identified after publication, the journal will follow COPE guidelines to issue a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction, as appropriate.