Peer Review Process

Al-Madina: Journal of Islamic Law operates a double-blind peer review system to ensure the integrity, quality, and relevance of articles published in the journal. The identity of authors and reviewers is concealed from one another throughout the review process.

The review process follows these general steps:

1. Initial check (desk screening)
   Upon submission the editorial office verifies that the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, conforms to submission guidelines, and meets basic standards of presentation. Manuscripts failing these checks may be returned to the author without external review.
2. Plagiarism and ethical screening
   All submissions undergo an originality/similarity check and are assessed for ethical compliance (authorship, permissions, research ethics). Manuscripts with serious ethical concerns or unacceptable similarity scores will be rejected.
3. Assignment to editor
   A handling editor with subject expertise is assigned. The editor makes an initial assessment and, if appropriate, selects at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
4. Peer review (double-blind)
   Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for originality, methodological rigor, theoretical and/or practical contribution, clarity, and adherence to ethical standards. Reviews should be constructive and focused on how the manuscript can be improved.
5. Editorial decision
   Based on reviewer reports and the editor’s judgment, one of the following decisions is issued:
   -  Accept (rare, usually after minor technical edits)
   -  Minor revision (author to address specified points)
   -  Major revision (substantive changes required; may trigger a second round of review)
   -  Reject
   Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and a clear summary of required changes when revisions are requested. Revised manuscripts are assessed by the handling editor and, where necessary, returned to reviewers.
6. Post-acceptance
   Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, formatting, and author proof stage. Final publication follows once proofs are approved.

The review process normally takes 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. The editorial team maintains confidentiality and impartiality throughout the entire process.

All submissions are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline involvement when a conflict exists.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by contacting the editorial office with a concise rationale; appeals are handled according to the journal’s editorial policies.