Review Process Policy

  1. Peer Review Policy

Musyarakah: Journal of Sharia Economics (MJSE) implements a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic contribution of manuscripts submitted for publication. The review process is intended to ensure that published articles meet appropriate scholarly standards and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in Islamic economics and finance.

The journal welcomes original research and scholarly contributions addressing Islamic economics, Islamic banking, Islamic finance, Islamic accounting, Islamic microfinance, zakat, waqf, Islamic philanthropy, and other related fields within its focus and scope.

Publication decisions are based on the manuscript's academic merit, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and potential contribution to the development of Islamic economics and finance.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to MJSE undergo an initial screening by the editorial team before being sent for external peer review. This stage is targeted for completion within seven working days of submission.

The initial screening evaluates:

  1. Compatibility with the journal's focus and scope.
  2. Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript template.
  3. Originality and preliminary similarity-check results.
  4. Clarity of the research objectives, research questions, and academic contribution.
  5. Adequacy of the manuscript's structure, references, and presentation.
  6. Compliance with relevant research and publication ethics requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's minimum requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or rejected without external review. Manuscripts that raise substantial concerns regarding originality, research integrity, or ethical compliance may also be declined at this stage.

Only manuscripts that satisfy the initial requirements will proceed to the peer-review stage.

  1. Peer Review Model and Number of Reviewers

MJSE applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts do not contain identifying information that could compromise the anonymity of the review. Reviewer identities are kept confidential and are not disclosed to authors unless an exceptional circumstance requires otherwise under the journal's applicable policies.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening will be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter of the submitted article.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and familiarity with the relevant subject area. Where appropriate, the editorial team may appoint reviewers from different institutions to support an independent and balanced assessment.

Reviewers should not have significant conflicts of interest with the authors, their institutions, or the research under consideration. If a conflict is identified, the editor will appoint an alternative reviewer where necessary.

The editorial team may seek an additional review if the initial assessments are substantially contradictory or if further specialist evaluation is required.

  1. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts using the following criteria:

  1. Relevance and scope: The manuscript's alignment with the focus and scope of MJSE.
  2. Originality and novelty: The extent to which the research offers new insights, findings, theoretical perspectives, or methodological contributions.
  3. Theoretical foundation: The adequacy of the literature review, conceptual framework, and engagement with relevant theories and previous studies.
  4. Research methodology: The appropriateness and transparency of the research design, data collection, sampling, analytical techniques, and research procedures.
  5. Results and discussion: The validity of the findings, quality of interpretation, consistency of the discussion, and engagement with existing scholarship.
  6. Contribution to Islamic economics and finance: The significance of the research for theory, policy, institutional practice, or the development of Islamic economic and financial systems.
  7. Conclusions and implications: The consistency of the conclusions with the research findings and the clarity of the stated implications and limitations.
  8. References and academic presentation: The relevance and quality of references, clarity of writing, and compliance with the journal's formatting requirements.
  9. Research and publication ethics: Compliance with applicable ethical standards, including originality, appropriate citation, research integrity, and disclosure of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments that help authors improve their manuscripts and assist editors in making informed publication decisions.

  1. Editorial Decisions

Following the peer-review process, the editor evaluates the reviewers' recommendations and comments alongside the manuscript's academic quality and suitability for publication.

The possible editorial decisions are as follows:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantive revision, subject to any remaining editorial or production requirements.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes that do not substantially alter its principal arguments or findings.
  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions to address significant concerns regarding its theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, interpretation, or academic contribution.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or contains deficiencies that cannot be adequately addressed through revision.

When reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor may seek additional reviews or conduct further editorial assessment before reaching a decision.

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.

  1. Revision and Resubmission

Authors whose manuscripts receive a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editor.

A revised submission must include:

  1. A revised manuscript incorporating the requested changes.
  2. A point-by-point response to all reviewer comments.
  3. Clear explanations for comments that have not been adopted, supported by appropriate academic reasoning.

The editorial team will examine the revised manuscript and the authors' responses to determine whether the concerns raised during the review process have been adequately addressed.

Where necessary, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Additional revision rounds may be requested if significant concerns remain unresolved.

Failure to submit a revision within the specified period, without an approved extension, may result in the manuscript being closed or treated as withdrawn in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures.

  1. Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

All reviewers are expected to maintain high standards of professional conduct and publication ethics throughout the review process.

Reviewers must:

  • Treat manuscripts and all associated review materials as confidential.
  • Provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful assessments.
  • Disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Avoid using unpublished information or ideas obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.
  • Assess manuscripts fairly without discrimination based on the authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, religion, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.
  • Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, or other potential breaches of publication ethics.
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor promptly if an extension is required.

Reviewers must not delegate their responsibilities to another individual without prior authorization from the editor.

Editors must also maintain confidentiality, impartiality, and editorial independence throughout the review process.

  1. Review Duration

MJSE aims to complete the editorial and peer-review process within approximately 12 weeks (three months) from the date of manuscript submission for a standard submission.

The following schedule represents the journal's target timeline. Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the number of review rounds.

No.

Editorial stage

Target duration

Cumulative timeline

1

Initial editorial screening

7 working days

Week 1–2

2

Reviewer invitation and assignment

1 week

Week 2–3

3

Initial peer review

3 weeks

Week 3–6

4

First-round author revision

2 weeks

Week 6–8

5

Re-evaluation of revised manuscript

2 weeks

Week 8–10

6

Final editorial decision

1 week

Week 10–11

7

Copyediting and publication preparation

1 week

Week 11–12
 

Total target duration

Approximately 12 weeks

Approximately 3 months

This timeline is an estimate rather than a guarantee. If additional reviews or revision rounds are required, the process may take longer. Authors will be informed of significant delays or additional requirements where appropriate.

  1. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a formal written appeal to the MJSE editorial office.

An appeal must identify the manuscript concerned, specify the decision being challenged, and provide clear academic or procedural grounds for reconsideration. Appeals may address factual misunderstandings, significant misinterpretations of the manuscript, procedural irregularities, or other substantive concerns relevant to the editorial decision.

Appeals should not be based solely on disagreement with a reviewer's scholarly opinion or dissatisfaction with an unfavorable decision.

The Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor without a conflict of interest will assess the appeal. Where necessary, the journal may consult an independent reviewer or another qualified editorial board member who was not involved in the original decision.

Following assessment, the journal may uphold the original decision, request further review, or reconsider the manuscript where justified by the evidence.

The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the corresponding author. The journal's appeal process is intended to ensure fairness, transparency, and procedural accountability. An appeal does not guarantee acceptance or publication of the manuscript.

  1. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

The peer-review process at MJSE is conducted in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies and recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing.

Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to uphold academic integrity, confidentiality, fairness, transparency, and accountability at every stage of manuscript evaluation.

Any suspected ethical violation identified during the review process will be assessed in accordance with the journal's relevant policies, including its Conflict of Interest Policy, Correction and Retraction Policy, and other applicable publication ethics procedures.

MJSE reserves the right to reject a manuscript or take other appropriate action when credible evidence indicates that the work fails to meet the journal's academic or ethical standards.

Through this review process, Musyarakah: Journal of Sharia Economics (MJSE) seeks to ensure that published research meets rigorous scholarly standards and contributes meaningfully to the advancement of Islamic economics and finance.