Peer Review Process

The Indonesian Journal of Islamic Economics and Finance (IJIEF) enforces a rigorous double-blind peer-review workflow designed to maintain academic integrity, methodological soundess, and publication quality. The complete review workflow proceeds through five structured stages:

1. Initial Submission & Desk Review Workflow

Upon manuscript submission via the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, the Managing Editor performs an initial administrative screening. This stage checks compliance with author guidelines, alignment with the journal’s Focus and Scope, structural completeness, and originality using similarity detection software (Turnitin/iThenticate, requiring a similarity index below 20%). Manuscripts failing initial screening or exhibiting severe ethical/scope mismatch are rejected at the desk stage within 7–14 days.

2. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass desk review are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to a Handling Editor. Reviewers are selected and assigned based on the following strict criteria:

  • Domain Expertise: High publication track record and expertise in the specific domain of the manuscript.

  • Institutional Independence: Reviewers must be external to the author’s institutional affiliation and geographic location where applicable to prevent bias.

  • Conflict of Interest: Zero financial, collaborative, or personal conflict of interest with the authors.

  • Reviewer Capacity: A minimum of three independent expert reviewers are assigned to evaluate each manuscript under a strict double-blind protocol (where both author and reviewer identities are concealed).

3. Review Rounds & Assessment Criteria

The evaluation process typically requires 1 to 2 rounds of review, depending on the extent of revisions recommended. Reviewers assess manuscripts using a standardized evaluation rubric focused on five core criteria:

  1. Originality & Scientific Contribution: Novelty of the research question and contribution to Islamic economics and digital finance literature.

  2. Methodological Rigor: Appropriateness of qualitative, quantitative, or conceptual research design, validity of data sources, and analytical precision.

  3. Ethical Compliance & Transparency: Adherence to research ethics, citation standards, and data integrity.

  4. Structure & Clarity: Logical flow, sound argument development, and proficiency in academic English.

  5. Practical & Policy Relevance: Utility of findings for scholars, industry practitioners, and economic policymakers.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Each of the three assigned reviewers independently submits an evaluation report along with one of four formal recommendations:

  • Accept Submission (no revisions required)

  • Revisions Required (minor structural or textual corrections)

  • Resubmit for Review (major theoretical, empirical, or methodological revisions requiring a second full round of review)

  • Decline Submission (insufficient scientific merit, flawed methodology, or unoriginal work)

5. Final Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Handling Editor. The decision process synthesizes all three reviewer reports:

  • Consensus/Majority Approval: If all three reviewers (or a majority of two with editorial concurrence) recommend acceptance or minor revisions, the Handling Editor issues a conditional acceptance letter specifying required adjustments.

  • Major Revisions: If major revisions are requested, the revised manuscript and a point-by-point author response matrix are sent back to the original reviewers for Round 2 evaluation.

  • Split/Conflicting Reviews: In cases of conflicting recommendations (e.g., one accept, one reject, one major revision), the Handling Editor may appoint a fourth senior reviewer or make an executive evaluation based on the manuscript's alignment with journal priorities.

  • Final Authorization: The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority to accept or reject any manuscript. Authors receive full, anonymized reviewer reports alongside the formal decision letter.