The review process is an essential aspect of an article's publication process. It enables authors to improve their manuscripts and aids editors in making decisions about them. Islamika Inside employs a double-blind peer review system.

A double-blind peer review system is an anonymous review system in which the identity of the manuscript's author(s) is concealed from the selected reviewers. All details that may enable a reviewer to identify a manuscript's author(s) are removed from the manuscript before it is sent to the reviewer. Similarly, the reviewers’ identities are also concealed from the author(s) when the reviewers’ comments are sent to the author(s). Islamika Inside considers the double-blind peer review system more effective because it limits possible bias from selected reviewers or authors.

Initial Review

1. Read the abstract to ensure you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is a good reason.

2. Read through the entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing--only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequately or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented, or did the results severely flaw the paper to render it unpublishable)?

5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; the sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound scientific reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

 

Review Questions

Novelty: Does this article contain an aspect of novelty and originality? If so, describe what the novelty element is. If not, suggest the potential novelty in this article so the author can make corrections.

Theory, Method, Analysis, and Conclusion: Are the theory and method used relevant to the topic of study? Is the analysis explained adequately? What is your response to this article's theory, method, and analysis? Does the conclusion conclude the results?

Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow and does it have a logical progression and evident organization? Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Are there any parts that should be reduced, eliminated/expanded/added?

References: Are the references used in this article supportive, sufficient, and relevant (primary and contemporary) to the topic of study?

 Complete Review Process of Manuscript