Reviewer Guidelines

  1. General Evaluation
  • Relevance: Does the manuscript fit within the journal's scope of Islamic studies, particularly in coastal and inland Muslim communities?
  • Originality & Contribution: Does the manuscript present a novel idea or original findings? Does it make a significant contribution to the field?
  • Plagiarism & Integrity:
    • Confirm that the similarity index is within the acceptable 30% threshold.
    • Assess if the work is the author's own or if there are any signs of academic misconduct.
  1. Content & Structure Evaluation
  • Title:
    • For Field Research: Does the title concisely reflect the idea/finding, the significance, and the research object?
    • For Conceptual Articles: Does the title powerfully reflect the significance and the object of the analysis?
  • Abstract:
    • Is the abstract between 150-300 words and written in a single paragraph?
    • Does it clearly summarize the objectives, method, key findings, novelty, and contribution?
  • Introduction:
    • Does the introduction successfully guide the reader by presenting the general context, a concise literature review, a clear research gap, and the research questions/objectives?
    • Does it explain the significance of the study and its contribution to the field?
    • Is the introduction no more than 20% of the total manuscript length?
  • Method:
    • For Field Research: Is the methodology clearly and sufficiently described to be replicable? Does the author specify the research design, participants, data collection techniques, instruments, and data analysis methods?
    • For Conceptual Articles: Does the author explain their analytical approach, data sources, and analysis techniques (e.g., content analysis, discourse analysis)? Does the method section demonstrate a systematic approach?
    • Is the method section no more than 15% of the manuscript?
  • Results & Discussion:
    • Are the findings presented logically and clearly?
    • Does the discussion interpret the findings and answer the research questions?
    • Is the discussion comprehensive, connecting the findings to existing scholarly knowledge by supporting, comparing, and/or contrasting them with other reputable studies?
    • Is this section no more than 60% of the manuscript?
  • Conclusion:
    • Does the conclusion summarize the main findings and directly answer the research questions?
    • Does it clearly formulate the implications of the findings and provide suggestions for future research?
  • References & Citations:
    • Are all citations correctly formatted according to Turabian/Chicago 17th Edition?
    • Is the majority of the bibliography composed of articles from reputable, indexed journals (preferably over 80%)?
    • Are all cited works listed in the bibliography, and vice-versa?
  1. Language & Formatting
  • Clarity & Readability: Is the language clear, concise, and free of grammatical errors and typos?
  • Format: Does the manuscript adhere to the specified format (A4 paper, 2 cm margins, Book Antiqua 12 font, single spacing)?