Reviewer Guidelines and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers of Madinah: Jurnal Studi Islam are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, and in accordance with the journal's focus and scope. The ethical responsibilities of reviewers, including confidentiality, conflict of interest, objectivity, and publication misconduct, are explained in the Publication Ethics section.

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

 

1. Relevance to the Journal Scope

The manuscript should be relevant to the journal's community-based focus and scope in Islamic studies, including:

  • Islamic education, Islamic thought, Islamic law
  • Muslim societies and Islamic civilization
  • Pesantren studies
  • Coastal, urban, and inland Muslim communities
  • Contemporary Islamic issues

Reviewers should assess:

  • Does the manuscript engage with a specific Muslim community (coastal, urban, or inland)?
  • Is the community context clearly described and relevant to the study?

 

2. Originality and Contribution

The manuscript should present original ideas, findings, arguments, or interpretations. Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to the development of knowledge in the field of Islamic studies.

Reviewers should also assess:

  • Does the manuscript offer practical implications for the community studied?
  • Does the research contribute to the well-being or empowerment of the community?
  • Does the manuscript fill a gap in community-based Islamic studies?

 

3. Academic Integrity

Reviewers should consider the similarity report as supporting information. The manuscript must not contain plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, improper citation, unethical authorship, or other forms of academic misconduct.

The similarity index should be within the journal's acceptable threshold (≤25%). However, editorial decisions must also consider the quality and nature of the similarity, not merely the percentage shown in the similarity report.

 

4. Title

The title should clearly, concisely, and accurately reflect the main topic, object of study, and focus of the manuscript.

For field research articles:

  • The title should reflect the main issue, research object, and significance of the study.
  • The title should also indicate the community context (coastal, urban, or inland).

For conceptual articles:

  • The title should clearly indicate the main concept, issue, or object of analysis.
  • The title should also indicate the community relevance of the conceptual framework.

Example of a good title:

"Islamic Education in Coastal Pesantren: Between Tradition and Modernity"

 

5. Abstract

The abstract should be written in a single paragraph and should contain approximately 150–300 words. It should clearly summarize:

  • Research objective
  • Method or analytical approach
  • Key findings
  • Novelty
  • Contribution of the manuscript
  • Community context (where applicable)

Reviewers should check:

  • Does the abstract explicitly mention the community context?
  • Is the abstract available in both English and Indonesian?

 

6. Introduction

The introduction should present:

  • General context of the study
  • Relevant previous studies (literature review)
  • Research gap
  • Research problem or research question
  • Research objective
  • Significance and contribution of the study
  • Community context, a clear description of the community being studied

Reviewers should assess:

  • Does the introduction clearly explain why the study is important and how it contributes to the field of Islamic studies?
  • Does it explain why this specific community was chosen?
  • Does it clearly identify the research gap?

 

7. Method

For field research articles:
The method section should clearly describe:

  • Research design
  • Participants or research subjects
  • Data sources
  • Data collection techniques
  • Instruments
  • Data analysis methods
  • Community Context , a description of the community setting and its socio-cultural characteristics
  • Ethical Considerations, how the researcher ensured ethical engagement with the community (e.g., informed consent, cultural sensitivity)

For conceptual articles:
The method section should explain:

  • Analytical approach
  • Data sources
  • Analysis techniques (e.g., content analysis, discourse analysis, historical analysis, textual analysis)
  • Community Relevance, how the conceptual framework is relevant to a specific community context
  • Application Context, how the conceptual analysis can be applied or translated into practice within the community
  • Reflexivity Statement (optional), a brief acknowledgment of the author's position in relation to the community

Reviewers should assess:

  • Is the method section detailed enough for the research to be replicable?
  • Does it demonstrate a systematic and academically accountable research process?
  • Are the community context and ethical considerations adequately addressed?

 

8. Results and Discussion

The findings should be presented logically, clearly, and systematically. The discussion should:

  • Interpret the findings
  • Answer the research questions
  • Connect the results with relevant theories and previous studies

Reviewers should assess:

  • Does the discussion support, compare, or contrast the findings with reputable scholarly literature?
  • Are the findings linked to the community context?
  • Does the discussion explain the implications for the community studied?

 

9. Conclusion

The conclusion should:

  • Summarize the main findings
  • Directly answer the research questions or objectives
  • Present the implications of the study (theoretical and practical)
  • Provide suggestions for future research (where appropriate)
  • State the implications for the community studied

Reviewers should assess:

  • Does the conclusion answer the research questions?
  • Does it address the practical implications for the community?

 

10. References and Citations

References and citations should follow the journal's required citation style, namely Turabian/Chicago 17th Edition.

Reviewers should assess:

  • Are the references relevant, current, reputable, and properly cited?
  • All sources cited in the text must appear in the bibliography, and all entries in the bibliography must be cited in the manuscript.

For empirical and contemporary studies, authors are encouraged to use recent articles from reputable or indexed journals. For conceptual, historical, or Islamic studies manuscripts, relevant books, classical texts, primary sources, and authoritative references may also be used when appropriate.

 

11. Language and Formatting

The manuscript should be written clearly, coherently, and academically. Reviewers should identify major issues related to:

  • Grammar, spelling, sentence structure
  • Terminology and readability
  • When these affect the quality of the manuscript

The manuscript should also follow the journal template, including:

  • Paper size, margins, font, spacing
  • Citation style
  • Table format, figure placement
  • Other technical requirements stated in the Author Guidelines

 

12. Reviewer Recommendation

Based on the evaluation, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

Recommendation

Description

Accepted

No further revisions needed

Accepted with minor revisions

Minor corrections required

Accepted with major revisions

Significant revisions required; may need re-review

Resubmission required

Substantial revisions; resubmit as new submission

Rejected

Not suitable for publication

The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewers' recommendations, editorial assessment, and the manuscript's compliance with the journal's standards.