Review Policy

1. General Principles

HIKAMI: Jurnal Ilmu Alquran dan Tafsir is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer-review process. Peer review plays an essential role in evaluating the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

The journal applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. Each manuscript considered for peer review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

The review process is intended to support high-quality scholarly publications in Qur'anic studies, tafsir, and related disciplines while maintaining academic integrity and editorial independence.

2. Scope of Review

Manuscripts submitted to HIKAMI are evaluated according to their suitability for the journal's focus and scope, scholarly merit, and compliance with the journal's submission requirements.

The peer-review process aims to assess the following aspects:

  1. Originality and Novelty: The extent to which the manuscript presents original arguments, findings, interpretations, or contributions to existing scholarship.

  2. Relevance to the Journal's Scope: The suitability of the manuscript for HIKAMI's focus on Qur'anic studies, tafsir, and related academic fields.

  3. Research Objectives: The clarity, relevance, and consistency of the research questions, objectives, and arguments.

  4. Methodological Rigor: The appropriateness and transparency of the research methods, analytical framework, and use of evidence.

  5. Quality of Analysis and Discussion: The depth of analysis, coherence of argumentation, and adequacy of the interpretation of research findings or textual evidence.

  6. Use of Sources and References: The relevance, accuracy, and adequacy of scholarly references, citations, and primary sources.

  7. Academic Contribution: The significance of the manuscript's contribution to the advancement of knowledge in its field.

  8. Structure and Presentation: The organization, clarity, language, and conformity of the manuscript with the journal's author guidelines.

For manuscripts concerning Qur'anic texts, tafsir, classical Islamic scholarship, manuscripts, or related intellectual traditions, reviewers should pay particular attention to the accuracy of source attribution, the adequacy of textual evidence, the appropriateness of interpretive methods, and the soundness of scholarly argumentation.

3. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Reviewers are selected by the editorial team based on their academic expertise, research experience, and suitability for evaluating the subject matter of the submitted manuscript.

The journal seeks to appoint reviewers who can provide informed, impartial, and constructive assessments. Reviewer selection may take into account relevant publications, institutional affiliation, areas of specialization, and previous reviewing experience.

Reviewers must be independent of the submitted work and must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

Individuals with significant personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic conflicts involving the authors or the subject matter should decline the invitation or inform the handling editor so that an appropriate decision can be made.

The journal may replace a reviewer or invite an additional reviewer when necessary to ensure a fair and sufficiently informed evaluation.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

HIKAMI uses a double-blind peer-review model to promote fairness and objectivity in scholarly evaluation.

Under this model:

  • Authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers assigned to their manuscripts.

  • Reviewers are not provided with the identities of the authors.

  • Authors must prepare anonymized manuscripts in accordance with the journal's submission requirements.

  • Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and refrain from attempting to identify the authors unnecessarily.

  • Editorial correspondence and review reports are handled through the journal's designated editorial procedures.

The editorial team takes reasonable steps to protect the identities of authors and reviewers. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when the manuscript contains identifiable information or when its content makes the author's identity apparent.

5. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity and professional conduct.

Reviewers must:

  • Provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessments of submitted manuscripts.

  • Evaluate manuscripts according to scholarly merit rather than personal preferences, institutional affiliations, nationality, religion, gender, or other irrelevant characteristics.

  • Explain their recommendations clearly and support substantive criticisms with appropriate academic reasoning.

  • Respect the confidentiality of manuscripts, review reports, and editorial correspondence.

  • Avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or research advantage.

  • Identify relevant publications or sources that have not been adequately acknowledged.

  • Inform the handling editor of suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other potential ethical concerns.

  • Disclose conflicts of interest and decline assignments they cannot evaluate impartially.

  • Accept review assignments only when they possess sufficient expertise and can complete the evaluation within the agreed timeframe.

  • Communicate respectfully and professionally with the editorial team.

Reviewers should distinguish between substantive scholarly concerns and minor editorial suggestions. Their reports should help authors improve the accuracy, clarity, methodological rigor, and scholarly contribution of their manuscripts.

6. Confidentiality and the Use of Artificial Intelligence

Manuscripts submitted to HIKAMI are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or discuss unpublished manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, or identifiable editorial correspondence to external artificial intelligence tools or other third-party services when doing so would compromise confidentiality or violate applicable data-protection requirements.

Artificial intelligence tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of their evaluations.

Any use of permitted tools must comply with the journal's confidentiality requirements and applicable editorial policies.

7. Editorial Decisions

Reviewer reports provide essential advice to the editorial team but do not, by themselves, constitute a final publication decision.

Based on the reviewers' assessments, the manuscript's suitability for the journal, and the journal's editorial standards, the editorial decision may be one of the following:

  • Accept: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any necessary editorial or production requirements.

  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes that do not substantially alter its central argument or findings.

  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements before it can be considered further.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

Where reviewer recommendations differ significantly, the editor may seek further clarification, request an additional review, or evaluate the manuscript independently before making a decision.

The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the final editorial decision. Acceptance is not guaranteed by the submission of a manuscript or by the payment of any applicable publication fee.

8. Revision and Re-Evaluation

Authors who receive a revision decision must revise their manuscripts in accordance with the editorial instructions and the reviewers' comments.

Authors should provide a point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed. Where a recommendation is not adopted, a clear scholarly justification should be provided.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other qualified reviewers when further assessment is necessary.

The editorial team evaluates whether the revisions adequately address the concerns raised during the review process. A revised manuscript may be accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected if substantial concerns remain unresolved.

9. Review Timelines

HIKAMI seeks to conduct peer review as efficiently as possible without compromising the quality of scholarly evaluation.

The duration of the review process may vary depending on the manuscript's subject matter, the availability of qualified reviewers, the complexity of the review, and the extent of revisions required.

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the timeframe communicated by the editorial office. If a delay occurs, the editorial team may contact the reviewer, extend the deadline where appropriate, or invite another reviewer.

Authors will be informed of significant developments or delays when necessary. The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period.

10. Complaints and Appeals Concerning Peer Review

Authors may submit complaints concerning irregularities in the review process or appeal editorial decisions when they have specific and substantive grounds for reconsideration.

Grounds for an appeal may include a significant factual misunderstanding, a relevant procedural irregularity, a potential conflict of interest, or a material issue that was not adequately considered during evaluation.

Appeals must be submitted through the journal's official communication channels and include a clear explanation of the grounds for the request, together with supporting information where available.

The editorial team will assess complaints and appeals impartially. Where appropriate, an independent editor or another qualified individual may be involved to avoid conflicts of interest.

Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed. The journal's decision following an appeal will depend on the evidence and the applicable editorial policies.

11. Ethical Standards and Misconduct

HIKAMI expects all authors, reviewers, and editors to observe the journal's publication ethics standards throughout the peer-review process.

If potential misconduct or a serious breach of ethical standards is identified, the editorial team will assess the available evidence and take appropriate action in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy.

Depending on the circumstances, actions may include requesting clarification, suspending the review process, rejecting the manuscript, or taking post-publication action if the article has already been published.

Concerns will be handled fairly and confidentially where appropriate, and authors will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive allegations.

12. Commitment to Responsible Peer Review

HIKAMI is committed to ensuring that peer review supports the reliability, originality, and academic value of its publications.

Through independent evaluation, responsible reviewer conduct, fair editorial decisions, and adherence to publication ethics, the journal seeks to maintain a credible scholarly platform for researchers and readers in Qur'anic studies and tafsir.

This policy is informed by the ethical principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly its guidance on ethical peer-review practices.