Peer Reviewer Policy

The Idaria: Journal of Islamic Educational Management operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the high quality, validity, originality, and ethical standards of all published manuscripts. This policy outlines the principles governing the role and responsibilities of our reviewers.

Type of Review

The journal primarily uses a Double-Blind Review system. This means that:

  • The Author's identity is concealed from the reviewers.
  • The Reviewer's identity is concealed from the authors.

This process ensures an unbiased, objective, and fair assessment of the scientific content.

 

Reviewer Appointment

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors based on their expertise, academic qualifications, and specialization in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. The journal maintains a database of both internal (Editorial Board) and external experts.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Objectivity and Constructiveness: Reviews must be conducted objectively. Reviewers should provide clear, constructive comments and critiques to help the authors improve their work. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose any information about the manuscript to anyone or use the content for their personal benefit before publication.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete the review within the specified timeframe (e.g., three to four weeks) to maintain an efficient publication schedule. If a deadline cannot be met, the reviewer must promptly inform the Editorial Office.
  • Identifying Misconduct: Reviewers should be alert for any signs of plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate submission and immediately report such concerns to the Editor.
  • Conflict of Interest: Any reviewer who has a conflict of interest (financial, personal, or professional relationship) with any of the authors or the content of the manuscript must immediately notify the Editor and decline the review invitation.

Review Outcome

Based on the reviewer's report, the Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is ready for publication.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript needs small, easily addressable corrections.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript needs substantial changes and will be sent back to the reviewers for a second round of review.
  • Reject Submission: The manuscript is seriously flawed or does not meet the journal's standards and scope.
  •  

The ultimate decision on acceptance or rejection rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.