The Journal of Islamic Law Research (ILRJ) employs a double-blind peer review process, ensuring the anonymity of both reviewers and authors.
This journal utilizes the opinions of at least three peer reviewers specializing in the subject matter for the evaluation of each article. This number may increase for some articles at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
Peer Review Process
Initial Screening (Within 5 Days): Manuscripts that conform to the author guidelines and possess appropriate scientific content aligned with the journal's aims and scope undergo an initial review by the Editor-in-Chief. This preliminary approval process, including the selection of reviewers, typically spans 1 to 5 days.
Review (2–6 Months): Manuscripts approved in the initial stage are peer reviewed by at least three experts knowledgeable in the subject matter. Based on the reviewers' evaluations and any supplementary comments from the editors, the Editor-in-Chief categorizes the articles as follows: A - Articles requiring no revision B - Articles needing minor/major revisions according to the reviewers' and editors' comments C - Rejected articles
Revision(s) (15–45 Days): Authors must address the required revisions or justify the absence of needed changes via the journal website within a maximum of 45 days from receiving the feedback. This process may involve multiple rounds of revision to ensure all concerns are adequately addressed. However, if the revisions are deemed insufficient, the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject the manuscript.
Final Acceptance and Publication: After the completion of revisions based on the reviewers' and editors' comments, and upon the final decision of acceptance by the Editor-in-Chief, the author will be directed to pay the Article Processing Charge (APC).
Editorial Decision Making
The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief. Editorial decisions are based strictly on the manuscript’s academic merit, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope, as evaluated through the rigorous double-blind peer review process.
While the Editor-in-Chief carefully considers the detailed reports and recommendations provided by the peer reviewers and editorial board members, the ultimate authority for publication decisions remains with the Editor-in-Chief. Furthermore, the decision-making process is entirely independent of the publisher and is not influenced by commercial interests, article processing charges (APCs), or the authors' institutional or personal backgrounds. The Editor-in-Chief also ensures that all decisions comply with legal requirements and ethical policies regarding plagiarism, copyright infringement, and libel.
