Peer Review Process Statement

Al-‘Ilam Journal of Contemporary Islamic Communication and Media is committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly integrity, ethical research, and academic publishing. Our peer-review process adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to ensure fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality throughout the review process.

Type of Peer Review
Al-‘Ilam Journal implements a double-blind peer review system. The identities of both reviewers and authors are kept anonymous during the entire review process. Authors are required to submit a title page with complete author information separately from the main manuscript to ensure anonymity.

Reviewer Selection Process
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in Islamic communication, media studies, and related fields. The editorial board continuously updates the reviewer database to reflect current academic standards. Authors may suggest potential reviewers; however, the Editor reserves the right to use discretion in selecting appropriate referees. A minimum of two independent reviewers review each manuscript.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are required to evaluate submissions based on the following:

• Originality and contribution to the field of Islamic communication and media.
• Methodological soundness and clarity of research design.
• Quality of analysis and alignment between data, discussion, and conclusion.
• Accuracy in citing relevant and up-to-date literature.
• Adherence to ethical guidelines, including avoidance of plagiarism.
• Relevance to the scope and aims of Al-‘Ilam Journal.

While reviewers are not expected to correct grammar or style, they are welcome to suggest improvements. The editorial team manages final language editing before publication.

Review Process and Recommendations
Upon accepting a review invitation, reviewers may provide their evaluation using the journal’s review form or via an uploaded document. The following recommendations may be made:

Accept Submission – The article meets the required standards.
Minor Revisions Required – There are minor improvements needed. The improvements may take a shorter duration up to one month.
Major Revisions Required – Substantial modifications must be made, with re-evaluation.
Reject Submission – The article does not meet the journal’s standards or scope.

Timeline of Review
Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within 4 to 6 weeks. The editorial team will follow up to ensure timely progress. Delays must be communicated to the editorial office as soon as possible.

Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewers’ recommendations and authors’ revisions, will make the final decision on acceptance, further revision, or rejection. The decision will be communicated to the authors via email.