Peer Review Process

AZKIYA: Jurnal Ilmiah Pengkajian dan Penelitian Pendidikan Islam applies a double-anonymous peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

The peer-review process is intended to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and contribution of every manuscript considered for publication.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Team.

The initial screening includes:

  • suitability with the journal's focus and scope;
  • completeness of the manuscript and metadata;
  • conformity with the Author Guidelines and journal template;
  • originality and relevance of the topic;
  • basic methodological and academic quality;
  • compliance with publication ethics;
  • similarity or plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's minimum requirements may be declined at this stage without external review.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

As a general principle, each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.

The Editorial Team considers reviewer expertise, academic competence, availability, and potential conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the Editor.

3. Double-Anonymous Review

AZKIYA applies a double-anonymous review model.

This means:

  • reviewers do not know the identity of the authors; and
  • authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Authors are therefore required to remove identifying information from the manuscript file where necessary before submission.

Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished material for personal benefit.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several academic criteria, including:

  1. relevance to the focus and scope of AZKIYA;
  2. originality and novelty of the study;
  3. clarity of the research problem and objectives;
  4. appropriateness of the theoretical framework;
  5. methodological rigor;
  6. validity and clarity of the findings;
  7. depth and quality of discussion;
  8. relevance and quality of references;
  9. contribution to Islamic Religious Education and Islamic Education Studies;
  10. clarity, coherence, and academic quality of writing.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission
  • Revisions Required
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Decline Submission

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor based on the reviewers' comments, the academic quality of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial policies.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors must respond carefully to all reviewer and editor comments.

Authors should:

  • revise the manuscript accordingly;
  • provide clear responses to reviewer comments;
  • explain any suggestions that are not followed;
  • ensure that all revisions are consistent throughout the manuscript.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

7. Editorial Decision

The Editor makes the final decision regarding publication.

The decision may consider:

  • reviewer recommendations;
  • quality of the revision;
  • originality and contribution of the study;
  • methodological soundness;
  • ethical compliance;
  • suitability for the journal.

The final decision may be:

Accept Submission — Revisions Required — Resubmit for Review — Decline Submission.

8. Review Timeline

AZKIYA seeks to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining academic quality.

The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds required.

Authors will be informed of editorial decisions and revision requests through the OJS system and registered email address.

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Reviewers should decline the invitation if they have:

  • recent research collaboration with the authors;
  • supervisory or institutional relationships that may compromise impartiality;
  • personal or financial interests related to the manuscript;
  • other circumstances that may affect objective judgment.

10. Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not share information about submitted manuscripts with unauthorized parties.

Unpublished data, arguments, interpretations, or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal research or other purposes without the explicit permission of the authors.

11. Ethical Concerns During Review

If reviewers identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, unethical research practices, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, or other forms of misconduct, they should immediately inform the Editor.

The Editorial Team will evaluate the concern and take appropriate action in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

12. Editorial Independence

Peer-review and editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, methodological quality, relevance, originality, and ethical compliance.

Decisions must not be influenced by the author's gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, political views, or other irrelevant considerations.