Peer Review Process
MIMBAR TRIBAKTI: Journal of Islamic Studies and Education applies a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, and scholarly contribution of all published articles.
The Editor-in-Chief assigns each submitted manuscript to the Managing Editor or relevant editors for further handling. The Managing Editor will then invite at least two reviewers who are recognized experts in the relevant field to evaluate the research manuscript. All manuscripts are subject to a double-blind peer review, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process in order to uphold academic integrity and objectivity. All submissions are fully peer-reviewed, and the journal publishes only articles that have been reviewed and approved by highly qualified reviewers (a minimum of two reviewers per article).
MIMBAR TRIBAKTI: Journal of Islamic Studies and Education implements a two-stage review process. Following an initial technical check—including compliance with the author guidelines and plagiarism screening—the manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team for its suitability for publication. If deemed appropriate, the manuscript is assigned to one of the editors to manage the peer review and decision-making process.
If the manuscript falls within the journal’s scope and meets its criteria, the editor will identify and contact two reviewers with relevant expertise. As peer review is a voluntary activity, the duration of the review process may vary. The editor will periodically remind reviewers if evaluations are not submitted within the stipulated timeframe. During this stage, the manuscript status will appear as “Under Review.”
Once the editor has received the minimum required number of expert review reports, the manuscript status will change to “Required Reviews Complete.” Based on the reviewers’ comments, the editor will proceed with the editorial decision.
The editor may also determine that a manuscript does not meet the journal’s scope or criteria and should not be considered further. In such cases, the editor will promptly notify the author(s) of the rejection and, where possible, recommend a more suitable journal.
Editors may also request additional reviews when necessary, and the author(s) will be informed if further review is required.
In summary, the peer review process consists of the following steps:
1. Manuscript submission by the author(s).
2. Manuscript checking and initial selection by the Managing Editor and editors.
3. Editorial decision to accept, reject, or send the manuscript for peer review; plagiarism screening is conducted prior to further processing.
4. Manuscript review by reviewers.
5. Notification of acceptance, revision, or rejection by the editor based on reviewers’ comments.
6. Manuscript revision by the author(s).
7. Resubmission of the revised manuscript following reviewers’ recommendations, with a process similar to the initial submission.
8. If the revision is deemed satisfactory, notification of acceptance by the editor.
9. Galley proof preparation and publication of the article.
Steps 1 to 5 are considered one round of the peer review process. The editor or editorial board carefully evaluates the feedback provided by the reviewers before reaching a final decision. The most common editorial decisions include:
1. Accepted as it is: the article is published in its original form.
2. Accepted with minor revisions: the article is published after the author(s) make minor corrections within a specified timeframe.
3. Accepted with major revisions: the article is published provided that the author(s) make substantial revisions as recommended by the reviewers and/or editors within the stipulated time.
4. Resubmit (conditional rejection): the manuscript may be reconsidered in a subsequent review round after the author(s) make major revisions.
Rejected (outright rejection): the manuscript will not be published or reconsidered, even if major revisions are made.
