Review Process Policy

The Jurnal Kajian dan Pengembangan Umat, published by the Faculty of Islamic Studies, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Barat, applies a peer-review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. The journal is committed to ensuring that editorial decisions are based on academic merit, methodological rigor, ethical standards, and the journal's focus and scope.

 

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine whether they comply with the journal's author guidelines and publication policies.

The initial screening considers:

  • · Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
  • · Originality and potential scholarly contribution.
  • · Compliance with manuscript formatting and submission requirements.
  • · Adequacy of references and citation practices.
  • · Compliance with research ethics and publication integrity requirements.
  • · Preliminary similarity screening, where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected before peer review.

 

2. Peer-Review Method

The journal uses a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to the extent practicable.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and ability to provide an objective assessment. Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline assignments that could compromise their impartiality.

 

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:

1. Originality and contribution to scholarly knowledge.

2. Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

3. Clarity of the research problem, objectives, and argument.

4. Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology.

5. Accuracy and adequacy of data analysis and interpretation.

6. Engagement with relevant literature and theoretical frameworks.

7. Logical consistency between findings, discussion, and conclusions.

8. Quality of academic writing, organization, and presentation.

9. Compliance with research ethics and publication standards.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments that help authors improve their manuscripts.

 

4. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's independent assessment, the journal may make one of the following decisions:

  • · Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantial revisions, subject to final editorial checks.
  • · Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes before a final decision.
  • · Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be returned for further review.
  • · Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or is unsuitable for publication.

The final publication decision rests with the editor-in-chief or an authorized editor. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not automatically determine the outcome.

 

 

5. Revision and Resubmission

Authors requested to revise their manuscripts must respond to the reviewers' comments and provide a revised version within the timeframe specified by the editorial office.

Authors should submit a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. If an author disagrees with a reviewer's recommendation, the author should provide a clear scholarly justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent of the revisions and the editorial decision.

6. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished information or use material obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must provide objective, respectful, and evidence-based evaluations. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

The journal does not tolerate discrimination, coercion, plagiarism, or manipulation of the peer-review process.

 

7. Review Timeline

The journal aims to process submissions as efficiently as possible while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review. The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the time required for revisions.

Authors may contact the editorial office for updates on their submission status through the journal's official communication channels.

 

8. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation and relevant supporting evidence to the editorial office.

Appeals will be considered by the editor-in-chief or an appropriate editor who can assess the matter impartially. The journal may seek additional expert advice where necessary. An appeal does not guarantee a change in the original decision.

 

9. Final Editorial Checks and Publication

Manuscripts accepted for publication undergo final editorial checks, which may include language editing, reference verification, layout preparation, and confirmation of author details and declarations.

Acceptance does not exempt a manuscript from the journal's publication ethics requirements. The editorial team reserves the right to address newly identified ethical or integrity concerns in accordance with the journal's policies.

The Jurnal Kajian dan Pengembangan Umat is committed to a fair, transparent, and rigorous peer-review process that supports the advancement of credible and responsible scholarship.