Eduistiqomah in Islamic Education Management (EIEM) applies a Double-Blind Peer Review system to maintain the objectivity, fairness, confidentiality, and academic quality of the review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.
The peer-review process generally consists of the following stages:
Authors submit manuscripts electronically through the EIEM Online Journal System (OJS).
At the time of submission, authors are required to provide complete and accurate manuscript metadata, including the title, abstract, keywords, author information, affiliations, and references.
Authors must ensure that the manuscript complies with the journal's Author Guidelines, manuscript template, ethical requirements, and Focus and Scope.
Each submitted manuscript is first examined by the editorial team.
The initial screening assesses:
Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.
Originality and scholarly contribution.
Compliance with the manuscript template.
Completeness of the manuscript.
Basic methodological appropriateness.
Academic language and presentation.
Ethical and publication requirements.
Potential plagiarism or excessive similarity.
The editorial team may return the manuscript to the author for technical correction or may reject manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements.
Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening may undergo a plagiarism or similarity check using appropriate similarity-detection tools.
The editorial team evaluates similarity results contextually. A similarity score alone does not determine whether plagiarism has occurred.
Manuscripts containing substantial unattributed material or other forms of academic misconduct may be rejected or returned for clarification and revision.
Manuscripts that meet the initial editorial requirements are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
EIEM generally assigns at least two independent reviewers to evaluate each manuscript.
Reviewers are selected based on:
Expertise relevant to the manuscript.
Academic qualifications and research experience.
Absence of conflicts of interest.
Availability to complete the review within the expected timeframe.
EIEM uses a Double-Blind Peer Review system.
Under this system:
Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
Reviewer comments are communicated through the OJS editorial system.
Authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript where necessary.
Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and should not disclose, reproduce, or use unpublished information obtained during the review process.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following general criteria:
Relevance to Islamic Education Management.
Significance of the research problem.
Originality and novelty.
Contribution to existing scholarship.
Adequacy of the literature review.
Relevance of theoretical or conceptual foundations.
Appropriate engagement with previous research.
Appropriateness of the research design.
Clarity of research procedures.
Adequacy of data sources or participants.
Appropriateness of data analysis.
Validity, reliability, credibility, or trustworthiness where applicable.
Ethical considerations.
Clarity and accuracy of findings.
Consistency between research questions, methods, and findings.
Adequacy of evidence.
Quality of interpretation and analysis.
Integration of findings with relevant literature.
Theoretical contribution.
Practical implications.
Policy implications where relevant.
Recognition of research limitations.
Organization and clarity of the manuscript.
Quality of tables and figures.
Academic language.
Accuracy and consistency of citations and references.
Compliance with the journal's manuscript requirements.
Reviewers provide an overall recommendation based on their evaluation. Possible recommendations include:
Accept Submission
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editor.
After receiving reviewer reports, the editor evaluates the manuscript and the reviewers' recommendations.
The possible editorial decisions include:
The manuscript is considered suitable for publication with no substantial revisions required.
The manuscript requires limited revisions before it can proceed toward publication.
The manuscript requires substantial revision and may be subject to further review.
The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements and will not proceed to publication.
When revisions are requested, authors must carefully address the comments provided by reviewers and editors.
Authors should submit:
A revised manuscript.
A response to reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed.
Additional documents requested by the editorial team, where applicable.
Authors should provide clear explanations when they disagree with a reviewer recommendation.
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other reviewers when the editor considers further evaluation necessary.
Further review may be required particularly when:
Major revisions have been requested.
Substantial methodological issues remain.
The authors have introduced significant changes.
Reviewers need to verify whether their major concerns have been adequately addressed.
The number of review rounds is determined by the editor according to the needs of the manuscript.
Following completion of the review and revision process, the editor makes the final decision regarding publication.
The decision considers:
Reviewer evaluations.
Quality and completeness of revisions.
Originality and scholarly contribution.
Methodological rigor.
Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.
Ethical and publication standards.
Acceptance is granted only when the editor determines that the manuscript meets the journal's publication standards.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to the editorial production stage.
This may include:
Copyediting.
Language editing.
Formatting.
Reference and citation checking.
Proofreading.
Layout preparation.
Authors may be asked to review the final proof and identify factual or typographical errors before publication.
Changes at the proof stage should generally be limited to necessary corrections and should not introduce substantial new content.
After the final editorial and production processes have been completed, the article is published electronically through the EIEM OJS platform.
Published articles are made available under the journal's stated Open Access Policy and applicable Creative Commons licensing terms.
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
Reviewers must:
Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
Provide objective and constructive comments.
Avoid personal or offensive criticism.
Declare potential conflicts of interest.
Decline the review when they cannot provide an impartial assessment.
Avoid using unpublished information for personal advantage.
Not disclose the manuscript or review materials to third parties without editorial permission.
Reviewers and editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
A reviewer should decline an assignment if personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationships could compromise the impartiality of the review.
Authors are also required to disclose relevant conflicts of interest in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.
EIEM aims to conduct the peer-review process in a timely and efficient manner while maintaining rigorous academic standards.
The actual duration of the review process may vary depending on:
Reviewer availability.
Complexity of the manuscript.
Number of revision rounds.
Responsiveness of authors.
Editorial workload.
The journal does not compromise the quality and integrity of peer review merely to meet a fixed publication timeline.
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual or procedural error may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office.
An appeal should:
Clearly identify the manuscript.
Explain the specific grounds for the appeal.
Provide evidence or a reasoned response to the editorial decision.
Avoid simply disagreeing with reviewer opinions without substantive justification.
Appeals are considered by the editor according to the journal's editorial and publication-ethics policies.
EIEM is committed to maintaining integrity throughout the editorial and peer-review process.
The journal may investigate suspected cases of:
Plagiarism.
Fabrication or falsification of data.
Duplicate publication.
Unethical research practices.
Authorship disputes.
Citation manipulation.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Other forms of research or publication misconduct.
Where appropriate, the journal may follow established publication-ethics principles and guidance, including those developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and contribution of the manuscript.
Editorial decisions should not be influenced by:
Author nationality.
Religion.
Gender.
Institutional affiliation.
Political considerations.
Personal relationships.
Commercial interests.
The journal is committed to fair and objective editorial evaluation.
Questions concerning the peer-review process may be directed to the editorial office through the official Eduistiqomah in Islamic Education Management (EIEM) OJS platform.
ADDITIONAL MENU
SUBMIT ARTICLE
