Peer Review Process

Journal Al-Ikmal is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every manuscript submitted to Journal Al-Ikmal undergoes a rigorous peer-review process conducted by two or more reviewers with relevant expertise. This process ensures the academic quality, originality, and suitability of each manuscript for publication. The peer review system is implemented to maintain high scholarly standards and to ensure the credibility of the published works. The peer-review process in Jurnal Al-Ikmal proceeds through the following nine steps:

 

The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript through the journal’s online submission system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). To facilitate authors, Jurnal Al-Ikmal may temporarily accept submissions via email if necessary.

 

The submitted manuscript is initially assessed by the editorial team. The editor checks whether the manuscript fits the journal’s focus and scope. The editor also evaluates the manuscript’s structure and format based on the Author Guidelines. At this stage, preliminary quality screening is conducted to identify major methodological issues. All manuscripts that pass this step are checked using Turnitin to ensure an acceptable similarity index before proceeding to peer review.

 

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript to determine whether it is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, and significant. Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be rejected without further review.

 

The handling editor invites potential reviewers who possess relevant expertise, have research alignment with the topic, and have no conflict of interest. Jurnal Al-Ikmal uses a double-blind review system, ensuring that reviewers do not know the authors’ identities and authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. The manuscript is sent anonymously to the selected reviewers.

 

Invited reviewers evaluate the request based on their competence, potential conflicts of interest, and availability. Reviewers may accept or decline the invitation. When declining, reviewers may suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

 

Reviewers carefully examine the manuscript, often reading it multiple times. If significant issues are identified early, reviewers may recommend rejection. Otherwise, reviewers conduct a detailed assessment and submit their evaluation along with a recommendation: accept, reject, or request major/minor revisions.

 

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all reviewer comments to make an informed decision. If reviewer recommendations vary widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain further expert input before finalizing the decision.

 

The editor sends a decision letter to the author, including anonymized reviewer comments. Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts according to the feedback provided. Reviewers are also notified about the editorial decision regarding the manuscript.

 

If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the copy-editing and production stages. If the manuscript requires revision, the author must resubmit the revised version along with a detailed response to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts requiring further review will be returned to the reviewers unless they have opted out of additional rounds. Minor revisions may be reviewed solely by the handling editor.

 

Once the editor is satisfied with the revisions, the manuscript is formally accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are published online and made freely accessible as downloadable PDF files.