Mufassir: Journal of Qur’anic Exegesis and Studies

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

The publication of articles in this journal depends entirely on their scientific validity and coherence as assessed by the editor and/or peer reviewers. The editor evaluates whether the manuscript is comprehensible and whether it represents a meaningful contribution to the field. The journal acknowledges the efforts and constructive suggestions provided by reviewers.

Stages Of The Review Process

1. Acknowledgment of Submission (12–24 hours)

Authors will receive an automated submission confirmation via the system
The manuscript will be assigned a unique manuscript identification number

2. Initial Review by the Editor (3–5 working days)

The desk review includes an assessment of:

Alignment with the journal’s focus and scope
Compliance with author guidelines and journal template
Completeness of submission documents
Plagiarism check using Turnitin/iThenticate (maximum tolerance: 20–30%)
Originality and scientific merit
Overall academic quality of the manuscript

3. Possible Outcomes of Initial Review

3.1. Desk Reject: Reasons for immediate rejection include:

Out of scope
Plagiarism level above 20–30%
Non-compliance with template and author guidelines
Fundamental methodological flaws
Lack of novelty or scientific contribution

3.2. Format Revision: Authors are asked to correct formatting and submission completeness before the manuscript proceeds to peer review

3.3. Proceed to Peer Review: The manuscript meets the minimum criteria and is forwarded to reviewers

4. Reviewer Assignment (1–2 days)

4.1. Reviewer Selection Criteria:

Minimum of two reviewers with relevant expertise
Reviewers selected based on subject-matter specialization
May be from the Editorial Board or external reviewers
Experienced in journal management and scholarly publication

4.2. Avoidance of Conflict of Interest. Reviewers must decline the assignment if they:

Have co-authored with the author(s) within the last 3 years
Are employed by or affiliated with the authors’ institution
Are current or former doctoral advisors/advisees of the authors
Have personal or professional interests in the manuscript’s outcome
Have family or close personal relationships with the authors
Have financial interests related to the manuscript
Have academic or professional conflicts with the authors
Have collaborated on research projects with the authors within the last 5 years
Have vested interests in the publication of the manuscript
Were involved in writing, editing, or advising the manuscript prior to submission

5. Peer Review - Double Blind (2–6 weeks)

5.1. Review Method: This journal implements a double-blind peer review, ensuring that both author and reviewer identities remain confidential to maintain objectivity and integrity

5.2. Reviewers assess whether the manuscript:

Is original and clearly states its objectives and research gap
Employs sound and appropriate methodology
Adheres to relevant ethical guidelines
Presents results clearly and supports conclusions
Properly cites relevant prior research
Demonstrates novelty and significant contribution
Provides adequate analysis and discussion
Meets academic writing standards

5.3. Important Notes:

Reviewers are not expected to copyedit or perform language corrections
Language refinement is not part of the peer review process
Reviews typically take 5–6 weeks at most

6. Editorial Decision (within 7 days after review completion)

The editor makes a decision based on reviewer reports and may consult the Editorial Board if necessary. Possible decisions:

6.1. Accepted: Accepted without revisions (rare)

6.2. Accepted with Minor Revisions:

Minor changes required
Revision time: 1–2 weeks (7 days)

6.3. Accepted with Major Revisions: Substantial revisions required

Revision time: 3–4 weeks
May involve significant data analysis, theoretical adjustments, or paragraph restructuring

6.4. Resubmit for Review: Major revision requiring re-review

6.5. Resubmit Elsewhere: Manuscript unsuitable for this journal

6.6. Rejected: Reasons include:

Fundamental issues in review
Irreparable flaws
Duplicate or redundant publication

6.7. Editorial decisions are final.

Revision Guidelines For Authors

1. Response to Reviewers

Prepare a separate document addressing each reviewer comment.

1.1. Response to Reviewers Format

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS
Manuscript ID: MFS-2024-001
Title: [Manuscript Title]

We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments. Our responses are presented below:

REVIEWER 1

No	Reviewer Comment	Author Response	Changes Made
1	Introduction is too long and needs more focus	We have revised the introduction to be more concise and focused on the research gap	Pages 3–4, paragraphs 2–5 revised
2	Method section requires more detail on analytical techniques	We have added detailed explanations of the analytical methods used	Page 6, paragraph 3 added

REVIEWER 2
(Same format)

1.2. Principles for Responding to Reviewers

Maintain professionalism and respect
Address each comment clearly
Provide logical, scientific justification if you disagree
Specify exact locations of revisions (page, paragraph, line)

2. Marking Revisions

Use track changes or highlight major changes
Specify revised pages and paragraphs
Prepare a revision summary for reviewers and editors

3. Revision Deadlines

Minor revision: 1–2 weeks (7 days)
Major revision: 3–4 weeks
Extensions may be requested with justification

4. Late Submissions

Failure to respond by the deadline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript
Authors must notify the editor if additional time is needed

5. Re-Review (if necessary)

5.1. For Major Revisions:

Manuscript may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers
Editor checks whether all comments are addressed

5.2. Possible Re-review Outcomes:

If issues remain unresolved → manuscript rejected
If revisions are satisfactory → manuscript accepted

6. Final Decision

6.1. Accepted for Publication

Manuscript proceeds to copyediting and layout.
Authors receive a Letter of Acceptance.

6.2. Rejected after Revision

Reasons:

Insufficient revision
Failure to address fundamental issues
Unjustified refusal of reviewer suggestions

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following weighted criteria:

1. Originality and Contribution (30%)

Novelty of topic or approach
Contribution to knowledge advancement
Distinction from prior studies
Significance of findings
Clarity of research gap

2. Methodology (25%)

Clarity and appropriateness of methods
Alignment with research objectives
Validity and reliability of data
Transparency of research process
Compliance with research ethics

3. Analysis and Discussion (25%)

Depth of analysis
Accuracy of interpretation
Linkage to relevant literature
Ability to answer research questions
Logical support of conclusions

4. Writing Quality (10%)

Structural clarity
Coherence and cohesion
Academic language quality
Grammar and spelling
Alignment of title, abstract, discussion, and conclusion

5. References and Citations (10%)

Currency of literature
Relevance of references
Citation completeness
Format consistency
Proper referencing of relevant works

Post-Acceptance Process

1. Copyediting

Grammar and spelling corrections
Formatting adjustments
Terminology consistency
Reference and citation accuracy

2. Author Proofreading

Authors check the galley proof (MS Word format)
Time: 3–5 days
Allowed: minor corrections (typos, formatting)
Not allowed: substantive content changes
Authors may request essential corrections within 1 week after online release

3. Layout and Production

Manuscript formatted into journal layout
DOI assignment
Preparation for online publication

4. Publication Confirmation

Final layout sent to authors for approval
Authors may correct typographical errors
After confirmation, the Editorial Secretary processes online and print publication

5. Online Publication

Final version published online
Corresponding author notified with publication link

Re-submission of Revised Manuscript

1. Upload Procedure

Upload revised manuscript through OJS
Upload “Response to Reviewers” as supplementary file
Add brief revision notes in the system

2. Checklist Before Resubmission

All reviewer comments addressed
Properly formatted Response to Reviewers
Revisions clearly marked (track changes/highlight)
Manuscript follows journal template
Updated references if necessary
Final proofreading for typos and formatting

Becoming a Reviewer

1. Benefits

Early access to new research in the field
Recognition in the journal’s reviewer list
Can be cited as part of professional development

2. Conditions

Reviewer participation is voluntary
No financial compensation
Reviewers must maintain manuscript confidentiality
Reviewers may not use manuscript content until officially published

Reviewer Ethics

1. Confidentiality

Maintain confidentiality of manuscript content
Do not discuss the manuscript without editor’s permission
Do not use manuscript information prior to publication

2. Objectivity

Reviews must be objective and based on academic merit
Provide constructive criticism with suggestions
Avoid personal or unprofessional remarks

3. Timeliness

Complete reviews within the designated timeframe
Notify the editor immediately if unable to meet the deadline

4. Conflict of Interest

Declare any potential conflict
Decline review assignments if conflict exists

Overall Timeline

Stage	Duration
Submission Acknowledgment	12–24 hours
Initial Review (Desk Review)	3–5 days
Reviewer Assignment	1–2 days
Peer Review	2–6 weeks (max. 5–6 weeks)
Editorial Decision	7 days
Minor Revision	1–2 weeks (7 days)
Major Revision	3–4 weeks
Re-review (if needed)	2–3 weeks
Copyediting	1–2 weeks
Author Proofreading	3–5 days
Layout & Production	1–2 weeks
Online Publication	Based on publication schedule