Reviewer Guidelines
The Journal of Islamic Economics Indonesia (JESI) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, research integrity, and ethical scholarly publishing. Peer reviewers play an essential role in ensuring that published manuscripts demonstrate originality, methodological rigor, theoretical relevance, and meaningful contributions to Islamic economics and related disciplines.
JESI applies a double-blind peer review process to promote objectivity, fairness, and confidentiality throughout manuscript evaluation.
1. Invitation to Review
Manuscripts submitted to JESI are evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers may be selected from the journal's Reviewer Board or invited as external experts by the editorial team.
Invited reviewers are expected to:
- Accept or decline review invitations promptly after examining the manuscript title and abstract.
- Accept assignments only when they possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
- Suggest alternative qualified reviewers when declining an invitation, where appropriate.
- Inform the editorial team immediately if additional time is required to complete the review.
- Complete their evaluations within the deadline established by the journal.
2. Potential Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their evaluation of a manuscript.
Potential conflicts include:
- Employment at the same institution as one of the authors.
- Co-authorship, research collaboration, joint research grants, or other close academic relationships with an author within the previous three years.
- Close personal relationships, professional rivalry, or other relationships that could affect impartiality.
- Financial interests that may be influenced by the publication of the manuscript.
- Personal, institutional, commercial, intellectual, ideological, or other non-financial interests that could compromise objective evaluation.
Reviewers who identify a potential conflict must notify the JESI Editorial Office before accepting or continuing a review assignment.
Previous evaluation of the same manuscript for another journal does not automatically constitute a conflict of interest. However, reviewers should disclose this circumstance to the editorial team.
Reviewers are encouraged to follow the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
3. Confidentiality and Reviewer Responsibilities
All manuscripts and supplementary materials received for peer review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal research or professional advantage.
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the review process and must not attempt to identify or contact the authors during the evaluation.
Reviewers are responsible for providing independent, objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessments that support editorial decision-making and help authors improve their manuscripts.
4. Review Reports
Reviewers are expected to evaluate the entire manuscript, including its abstract, introduction, literature review, theoretical framework, research methodology, findings, discussion, conclusions, references, tables, figures, and supplementary materials, where applicable.
Review reports should contain:
- A brief summary of the manuscript's objectives, principal findings, academic contribution, and strengths.
- General comments addressing originality, theoretical relevance, research gaps, methodological appropriateness, analytical quality, and the contribution to Islamic economics.
- Specific comments identifying weaknesses, inconsistencies, unsupported claims, methodological limitations, or unclear interpretations, preferably referring to relevant sections, tables, figures, or line numbers.
- Constructive recommendations explaining how the manuscript can be improved.
Reviewers must maintain a professional and respectful tone. Personal criticism, discriminatory statements, and unsupported allegations are strictly prohibited.
Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own publications, the journal's articles, or other works solely to increase citation counts. Recommended references must be academically relevant and contribute meaningfully to the manuscript's quality.
5. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria.
Originality and Novelty
Does the manuscript address an original research question, identify a clear research gap, and provide new theoretical, empirical, or practical insights?
Relevance to the Journal's Scope
Does the manuscript contribute to Islamic economics, Islamic finance, Islamic banking, Islamic business, halal industries, Islamic economic policy, or other areas within JESI's aims and scope?
Theoretical Foundation
Are the theoretical arguments, conceptual frameworks, and hypotheses clearly developed and supported by relevant academic literature? Where applicable, are Islamic economic principles appropriately integrated into the research framework?
Research Methodology
Is the research design appropriate for the research objectives? Are sampling procedures, data collection methods, analytical techniques, and research instruments sufficiently explained and academically justified?
Validity and Reliability
Are the research findings supported by reliable data, appropriate analytical procedures, and valid interpretations? Are the methods sufficiently described to allow verification or replication where applicable?
Results and Discussion
Are the findings presented clearly and interpreted critically? Does the discussion explain their relationship to existing literature, theoretical expectations, and the research objectives?
Academic Contribution
Does the manuscript advance scholarly understanding, offer meaningful practical implications, or contribute to policy development in Islamic economics and related fields?
References and Literature
Are the references relevant, credible, and sufficiently current? Does the manuscript engage with recent scholarly developments while appropriately acknowledging foundational literature?
Research Ethics
Does the manuscript comply with accepted research ethics, including originality, appropriate citation, research transparency, confidentiality, and responsible data management?
Language and Presentation
Is the manuscript clearly written, logically organized, and presented in appropriate academic English
6. Rating the Manuscript
Reviewers should provide an overall assessment based on the following dimensions:
- Novelty: Originality of the research question, findings, and academic contribution.
- Scope: Relevance to JESI's aims and scope.
- Significance: Importance of the research findings and their implications.
- Quality: Clarity of presentation, theoretical development, and analytical interpretation.
- Scientific Soundness: Appropriateness of the research design, validity of data, and reliability of analytical procedures.
- Interest to Readers: Relevance and usefulness of the research to JESI's academic readership.
- Overall Merit: The manuscript's contribution to advancing knowledge in Islamic economics.
- English Language Quality: Clarity, accuracy, and appropriateness of academic writing.
Reviewers should provide clear justification for their assessments and identify specific areas requiring improvement.
7. Publication Ethics
JESI expects reviewers to uphold the highest standards of publication ethics.
Reviewers should ensure that:
- Manuscripts demonstrate originality and do not contain substantial unattributed material from previously published works.
- Research findings are supported by appropriate evidence and accurately reported.
- Research procedures comply with applicable ethical standards.
- References are appropriately acknowledged.
- Potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.
- Confidential manuscript information is protected.
If reviewers identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship practices, or other potential ethical violations, they must report their concerns confidentially to the editorial team.
Reviewers should not independently investigate allegations by contacting authors or third parties.
8. Overall Recommendation
After completing their evaluation, reviewers must provide one of the following recommendations:
Accept Submission
The manuscript meets the journal's academic and publication standards and can be accepted without substantive revisions.
Revisions Required
The manuscript demonstrates sufficient academic merit but requires minor or moderate improvements before further editorial consideration.
Resubmit for Review
The manuscript requires substantial revisions involving theoretical development, research methodology, data analysis, interpretation, or manuscript structure. A revised version must undergo further evaluation before a final decision.
Decline Submission
The manuscript contains fundamental academic weaknesses, insufficient originality, inappropriate methodology, serious ethical concerns, or does not meet the journal's publication standards.
Reviewers must provide academically justified recommendations. The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief, considering the reviewers' reports and editorial assessment.
9. Reviewer Recognition and Editorial Communication
JESI values the contributions of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality and credibility of scholarly publications.
Reviewers are encouraged to communicate promptly with the editorial team regarding review assignments, technical difficulties, potential conflicts of interest, or concerns about manuscript integrity.
All reviewer communications and evaluations are managed through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform or official editorial communication channels.
JESI maintains reviewer confidentiality in accordance with its double-blind peer review policy and applicable publication ethics standards.