Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers give independent scholarly advice to the editor and constructive feedback to authors. Reports should be objective, specific, evidence-based, respectful, and suited to the discipline and design of the manuscript.

1. Assess whether the manuscript:

  • is relevant to the journal’s scope;
  • shows originality and a clear academic contribution;
  • uses an appropriate, rigorous method or scholarly approach;
  • supports its conclusions with adequate evidence and interpretation;
  • acknowledges its limitations and is clearly organized.

Apply criteria that fit the type of work. Conceptual and interpretive studies, including many in Qur’anic sciences and tafsir, should not be judged by experimental or quantitative standards where another approach is justified. The checklist below is a guide, not a mandatory form.

2. Checklist by section

  • Abstract: background, objectives, method, results, conclusion, novelty.
  • Introduction: why the research matters, the context, at least two relevant previous studies, the research gap, objectives, and novelty.
  • Literature review: clear definitions of key concepts, patterns and theoretical relationships, and critical analysis of previous studies.
  • Methods: for empirical research, population, context, sample, data collection, and analytical framework; for interpretive research, sources, corpus, and analytical approach.
  • Discussion: key findings, comparison with previous research, implications, explanation of results, and next steps.
  • Conclusion: main findings, added value, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

3. Preparing your report

  1. Summarize the manuscript’s purpose and contribution.
  2. Identify its main strengths and substantive issues, and explain their implications.
  3. Separate essential revisions from optional suggestions, and number your comments with section or page references.
  4. Give a justified recommendation.
  5. State any limits to your assessment and any need for specialist review.

Write author-facing comments so authors can act on them. Raise sensitive integrity concerns only in confidential fields.

4. Professional standards

  • Critique the work, not the authors. Avoid discriminatory remarks, personal attacks, and unsupported accusations.
  • Comments on language should aim at clarity. Do not penalize authors for writing in a language that is not their first.
  • Recommend additional citations only when relevant. Do not ask authors to cite works to raise metrics.
  • A different interpretation is not, by itself, grounds for rejecting a defensible argument.

5. Integrity and confidentiality

  • Add comments directly in the manuscript file (track changes or annotations) as well as in your report.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, data problems, or other integrity concerns to the editor with supporting details. Do not contact authors or third parties to investigate on the journal’s behalf.
  • Keep the manuscript and all review information confidential.

6. Submission and conflicts of interest
Submit your report through the review system by the agreed date, and notify the handling editor promptly if you cannot finish. Disclose any new conflict of interest or any recognition of the author. Your review must be your own work. Delegation, consultation, and use of external tools are governed by the [Confidentiality] policy and the AI Policy. Your recommendation is advisory, and the editor makes the final decision as described in [Decision Process].

7. Recommendation

  • Accept without revision: ready for publication as it is.
  • Accept with minor revisions: sound, with small changes needed.
  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions): substantive problems requiring significant revision and further review.
  • Reject: not suitable for publication in its current form or for this journal.