Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer review process but may come to the role without any guidance and be unaware of their ethical obligations. Peer review guidelines proprovide basic principles and standards that all peer reviewers should follow during the peer review process for publications in this journal. These guidelines serve as a reference for this journal's editors and SCAD Independent publishers in guiding their reviewers. This statement is based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
 
 

Reviewer Guidelines

ISDAR: Journal of Islamic Dakwah and Research relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of articles published. All articles submitted to this journal will be peer-reviewed. This journal adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid and fair and also ensures a high quality of articles published. Therefore, this journal needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround time of about 4-5 weeks. Maintaining this journal as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. This statement is based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Before You Start

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

  1. Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review;
  2. Respond to the invitation as soon as you can – a delay in your decision slows down the review process, whether you agree to review or not. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative reviewers. If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors;
  3. Consider the article from your perspective, and ensure that the manuscript is of high quality and original work;
  4. Reviewing the manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work;
  5. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary reporting possible research misconduct, and informing the editor if you find the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication;
  6. Writing a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript, and writing a review report in English only. Your review report will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article;
  7. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and they should not include any personal remarks or personal details, including your name. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important;
  8. You should explain and support your judgment. Then, editors and authors can fully understand the reasoning behind your comments;
  9. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data;
  10. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal, your recommendation means a lot to us.
  11. When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article. You will have five possible options for any paper:
    a. Accept Submission (i.e. no need for any revision);
    b. Revisions Required (i.e. accepted if the author makes the requested minor revisions);
    c. Resubmit for Review (i.e. paper will be sent out for another peer review round);
    d. Resubmit Elsewhere (i.e. found paper discrepancies with the scope of the journal);
    e. Decline Submission (i.e. if the manuscript is not sufficiently developed for publication);
    f. See comments (i.e. if the reviewer cannot choose from any of the above).
  12. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.

Your review report

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks, but not your personal details. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.

Guidelines for Reviewer

Reviewers in this journal are asked to consider the following points during their evaluation:

  1. Does the paper have clear aims, objectives, and research questions that can be achieved within the scope of this journal paper?
  2. Does the paper make a contribution to knowledge?
  3. Is the work suitably grounded in the literature to justify its contribution and frame the analysis and evaluation?
  4. Is the research and evaluation methodology justified, clear, and appropriate? (including ethical considerations and approval where appropriate)
  5. Does the analysis and evaluation have a clear flow and logical argument?
  6. Does the analysis and evaluation link to an appropriate discussion and conclusion?
  7. Is it presented in a way that is suitable for this journal audience?

Here is a list of items that need to be reviewed:

  1. Originality;
  2. The novelty of the topic (are the main issues discussed in the paper very important, unique, and novelty?;
  3. Scientific reliability (does the aims, objectives, novelty, and significance of the study clear? Then, clarity of research gaps, use of theory or framework, and previous research);
  4. Methodology (relevance, clarity of the methodology or problem-solving approach used, and reproducibility);
  5. Data presentation and interpretation the research findings are clearly and comprehensibly presented. The authors conducted data presentation and interpretation validly and reasonably;
  6. Relevance between methods, results, and discussion, as well as depth of discussion;
  7. Conclusions (the conclusions must be clear and comprehensive, especially in terms of the author’s critical evaluation of research findings);
  8. A valuable contribution to science. Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines;
  9. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines;
  10. The references provided to substantiate the content are relevant and up-to-date;
  11. Paper quality, structure, grammar, punctuation, and spelling;
  12. Ethical aspects and scientific misconduct.

 

 

Reviewer Ethics and Policy Statements

Peer review is an essential component of the scholarly publication process that ensures the integrity, quality, and credibility of the research published in this journal. Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining academic standards by providing objective, fair, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Their assessments help the editorial team make informed decisions and assist authors in improving their work. If the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Team has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following guidelines carefully and adhere to them throughout the review process.

  1. If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors;
  2. Not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including junior researchers they are mentoring, without first obtaining permission from the journal; the names of any individuals who have helped them with the review should be included with the returned review so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due credit for their efforts;
  3. Notify the editor journal as soon as possible if they find they do not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript; they shouldn’t wait until submitting their review as this will unduly delay the review process;
  4. Read the manuscript, ancillary material (e.g. reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements, supplemental data files), and journal instructions thoroughly, getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items they need to carry out a full review;
  5. contact the editor's journal if circumstances arise that will prevent from submitting a timely review, providing an accurate estimate of the time they will need to do a review if still asked to do so. But not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author;
  6. Notify the journal editor immediately and seek advice if they discover either a conflicting interest that wasn’t apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them from providing a fair and unbiased review;
  7. Be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their own, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect;
  8. Consider the article from your own perspective. Ensuretheir review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases;
  9. Not make unfair negative comments or include unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript;
  10. Ensure their comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with their report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report for the authors;
  11. Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments;
  12. Reviewing manuscript critically, but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work;
  13. Remember it is the authors’ paper and not attempt to rewrite it to their own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. Make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work;
  14. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary;
  15. Providing all required information within established deadlines;
  16. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal;
  17. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review;
  18. Reporting possible research misconducts;
  19. Refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material while awaiting instructions from a journal on issues that might cause the request to review to be rescinded;
  20. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons;
  21. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document;
  22. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript;
  23. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors;
  24. Not identifying themselves to authors;
  25. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work;
  26. Notify the editor if finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge, or if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the editor journal asks for further information or advice;
  27. Writing a review report in English only;
  28. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript. Your review report will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details, including your name. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data;
  29. Your recommendation. When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article, and determine whether the journal allows them to sign their reviews and, if it does, decide as they feel comfortable doing:
    • If Rejected (explain the reason in the report);
    • Accept without revision;
    • If Revision – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article).
  30. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.
 

Reviewer Policy

This journal adheres to a Double-Blind Peer-Review process that is rapid and fair and ensures a high quality of published articles. The reviewer is a journal partner from the experts concerned about this journal's field. To maintain the integrity and excellence of the review process, all reviewers are expected to follow a set of ethical guidelines that reflect professionalism, fairness, and confidentiality. These principles are designed to ensure that every manuscript is evaluated solely on its academic merit, without bias or conflict of interest. The following points outline the key responsibilities and standards expected from all reviewers engaged in the peer-review process of this journal.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Professional Responsibility and Constructive Feedback
Reviewers should perform their tasks with professionalism, fairness, and respect for the authors’ intellectual efforts. Reviews should provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve the quality of their work, regardless of the final recommendation. The tone should remain academic and respectful at all times.

Timeliness and Communication
Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the timeframe set by the journal. If additional time is needed, they should inform the editor immediately to ensure a smooth and efficient review process.

Re-Review and Follow-up
When authors submit revised manuscripts, reviewers may be invited to re-evaluate the revised version to ensure that their comments and recommendations have been appropriately addressed. Reviewers are encouraged to maintain consistency and fairness across review rounds.

Ethical Considerations and Research Integrity
Reviewers should pay attention to potential ethical concerns in the manuscript, such as plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, or unethical research practices involving human or animal subjects, and report such concerns confidentially to the editor.

Anonymity and Impartiality
In a double-blind review process, reviewers must maintain their anonymity and avoid any actions that could reveal their identity to the author. They must also evaluate manuscripts impartially, regardless of the nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or background of the authors.