Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Islamic Humanities and Social Inquiry (JIHSI) relies on the expertise and dedication of its reviewers to maintain the highest standards of scholarly excellence. These guidelines are designed to assist reviewers in providing high-quality, objective, and constructive feedback to authors while adhering to the ethical standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the ICMJE.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers act as the guardians of scientific integrity. In accordance with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice:
•    Confidentiality: Every manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with third parties.
•    Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
•    Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions connected to the paper.
•    Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their evaluation within the specified timeframe (e.g., 3–4 weeks). If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, they must inform the Editor immediately.

Evaluation Criteria for JIHSI
Given JIHSI's interdisciplinary focus, reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following specific criteria:
•    Originality and Significance: Does the manuscript provide a new and significant contribution to the study of Islamic humanities or social inquiry?.
•    Theoretical Framework: Does the paper engage critically with relevant theories? In the context of JIHSI, does it offer meaningful engagement with Islam as a religious, intellectual, or cultural phenomenon?.
•    Methodological Rigor: Is the research design appropriate? JIHSI values diverse approaches, including textual and literary analysis of primary Islamic sources, fieldwork-based studies (interviews/ethnography), and comparative frameworks. Reviewers should check if the methodology is transparent and reproducible.
•    Ethical Compliance: For studies involving human subjects, reviewers should verify that ethical approval and informed consent were obtained.
•    Clarity and Presentation: Is the manuscript well-written and logically structured? Reviewers should verify that the manuscript follows the APA 7th Edition style for in-text citations and the reference list.

Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers are asked to provide a clear recommendation to the Editor via the OJS platform:
•    Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
•    Revisions Required (Minor): The manuscript requires small changes (e.g., clarifying a point or fixing citations).
•    Resubmit for Review (Major): The manuscript requires significant revision and must undergo another round of peer review.
•    Decline Submission: The manuscript is not suitable for JIHSI due to fundamental flaws in theory, methodology, or originality.

Providing Constructive Feedback
Reviewers should aim to help authors improve their work.
•    Clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
•    Provide specific suggestions for improvement (e.g., "The author should consult [Source X] to strengthen the historical context of the argument").
•    Avoid inflammatory language or derogatory comments.