ADDITIONAL MENU
Peer Review Proccess
Sholihan: Journal of Islamic Religious Education (SJIRE) applies a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and relevance of every manuscript considered for publication. In the double-blind review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team to determine whether they comply with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, manuscript format, academic standards, and publication ethics.
The editorial team may also conduct an initial similarity check to identify potential plagiarism or substantial overlap with previously published works.
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review.
2. Editorial Assessment
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assessed by the editor for their:
- Relevance to the journal's scope.
- Originality and novelty.
- Clarity of research objectives.
- Adequacy of methodology.
- Academic significance.
- Quality of analysis and discussion.
- Overall contribution to Islamic Religious Education.
The editor may reject manuscripts at this stage if they do not meet the journal's minimum academic standards.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the editorial assessment are sent to at least two independent reviewers who have relevant expertise in the subject of the manuscript.
The reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:
- Originality and novelty.
- Relevance and significance of the research problem.
- Theoretical foundation.
- Research methodology.
- Accuracy and clarity of data analysis.
- Quality of results and discussion.
- Contribution to Islamic Religious Education.
- Quality and relevance of references.
- Academic writing and presentation.
- Research and publication ethics.
The identities of reviewers and authors remain confidential during the review process.
4. Reviewer's Recommendation
After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide comments and one of the following recommendations:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
The reviewers' recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.
5. Revision Process
When revisions are required, authors must revise their manuscript carefully in response to the reviewers' comments.
Authors should provide a clear response to each substantive reviewer comment and indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript.
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
6. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' reports, the quality of the revised manuscript, and the editor's assessment, the editor makes the final decision regarding publication.
Possible decisions include:
- Accept
- Accept with Minor Revisions
- Revise and Resubmit
- Reject
The editor may request additional revisions when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's academic and ethical standards.
7. Final Decision and Publication
Accepted manuscripts undergo final editorial and technical checks before publication. The editorial team may make necessary language, formatting, and technical corrections while preserving the author's substantive content.
The final version is then prepared for publication in the appropriate issue of Sholihan: Journal of Islamic Religious Education (SJIRE).
8. Estimated Review Timeline
The journal aims to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards. The typical review process may take approximately 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the responsiveness of authors.
The publication timeline may vary depending on the outcome of the review and revision process.
9. Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to EIRE are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, use, or distribute unpublished manuscript content or information obtained through the review process for personal or professional purposes.
10. Reviewer Independence and Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity. Reviewers should decline an assignment if they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationship with the authors that could compromise the impartiality of the review.
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based assessments.
11. Reviewer Anonymity
EIRE uses a Double-Blind Peer Review system. Authors do not know the identities of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identities of authors.
Authors are therefore required to remove identifying information from the manuscript file where appropriate, particularly in the anonymized manuscript prepared for peer review.





