Peer Review Process

El Madani: Jurnal Dakwah dan Komunikasi Islam employs a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of published articles. The journal follows a double-blind peer review system, where both the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential to promote impartiality and fairness. The peer review process is designed to evaluate the scholarly merit, relevance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts to the fields of Islamic da'wa and communication studies.

Steps in the Peer Review Process

  1. Initial Submission and Editorial Screening

    • Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system.

    • The editorial team conducts an initial screening to assess the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s Focus and Scope, adherence to submission guidelines, and overall quality.

    • Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s standards or scope may be rejected at this stage or returned to authors for revisions.

  2. Assignment to Reviewers

    • Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.

    • Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest with the manuscript or its authors.

  3. Double-Blind Peer Review

    • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript anonymously, focusing on its originality, methodological rigor, clarity, contribution to the field, and adherence to ethical standards.

    • Reviewers provide detailed feedback, including strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for improvement, and submit one of the following recommendations:

      • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or minor revisions.

      • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes to improve clarity or accuracy.

      • Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but needs significant revisions to meet publication standards.

      • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope.

  4. Editorial Decision

    • The editor-in-chief or handling editor reviews the feedback from both reviewers and makes a decision based on their recommendations.

    • Possible decisions include:

      • Accept: The manuscript is approved for publication, pending minor copyediting.

      • Revise and Resubmit: Authors are invited to revise the manuscript based on reviewer feedback and resubmit for further review.

      • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

    • Authors receive a decision letter with reviewer comments and guidance for next steps.

  5. Revision and Resubmission (if applicable)

    • If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address all reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response letter outlining how each comment was addressed.

    • Revised manuscripts may undergo a second round of review, either by the original reviewers or new ones, depending on the extent of revisions.

  6. Final Decision and Publication

    • Once the revised manuscript meets the journal’s standards, it is accepted for publication.

    • The manuscript undergoes copyediting, formatting, and proofreading to ensure clarity and consistency.

    • Authors are provided with a final proof for approval before the article is published in the journal.