Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Al-Adalah: Jurnal Hukum dan Politik Islam must comply with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, research integrity requirements, and publication policies.

Initial Editorial Screening

Each submission undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team. The screening assesses:

  1. conformity with the journal's focus and scope;
  2. originality and scholarly significance;
  3. clarity of the research problem and contribution;
  4. appropriateness and transparency of the research method;
  5. relevance to Indonesian, regional, or international legal debates;
  6. compliance with research and publication ethics;
  7. quality of academic English and presentation; and
  8. compliance with the journal's technical and formatting requirements.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, primarily descriptive, methodologically inadequate, ethically problematic, insufficiently original, or not written to an acceptable scholarly standard may be declined without external review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject and methodological expertise. The identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  1. originality and academic contribution;
  2. relevance to the journal's defined focus and international readership;
  3. engagement with appropriate national and international scholarship;
  4. methodological rigor and research transparency;
  5. quality and sufficiency of evidence;
  6. depth, coherence, and accuracy of legal analysis;
  7. significance of the findings for theory, policy, or legal practice; and
  8. clarity, organization, and readability of the manuscript.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and must decline a review when their independence may be compromised. Manuscripts and related review materials must be treated as confidential.

Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated handling editor makes one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept;
  2. Accept subject to minor revisions;
  3. Major revisions required; or
  4. Reject.

The final decision is based on scholarly quality, relevance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and the extent to which the manuscript addresses the reviewers' and editors' concerns. Acceptance is not determined solely by a numerical recommendation from reviewers.

Revision and Re-evaluation

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must submit:

  1. a revised manuscript with all changes clearly indicated; and
  2. a detailed response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

Manuscripts requiring major revisions will normally be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor when the requested changes do not require additional specialist review. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest exists. Such manuscripts will be assigned to another qualified editor who has full authority over the review and decision-making process.

Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit and are not influenced by institutional, political, commercial, or personal interests.