Peer Review Process

Dialogues in Qur’anic and Hadith Studies applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and scholarly contribution of every submitted article. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review stage.

All submitted articles are reviewed in accordance with the journal’s Focus and Scope, publication ethics policy, and international standards of scholarly publishing. The peer review process is designed to ensure that published articles make a meaningful contribution to Qur’anic studies, Hadith studies, Islamic hermeneutics, religious authority, living Qur’an and Hadith, digital Qur’an and Hadith studies, manuscript studies, and interdisciplinary Islamic textual scholarship.

Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted article will first be assessed by the editorial team to determine its suitability for the journal. At this stage, the editor checks whether the article:

fits the journal’s Focus and Scope;

follows the journal’s Author Guidelines;

uses the official article template;

has been anonymized for double-blind review;

shows originality and academic relevance;

contains a clear research problem, method, findings, and contribution;

uses proper citation and reference style;

and complies with publication ethics standards.

Articles that are outside the journal’s scope, poorly prepared, merely descriptive, apologetic, polemical, or lacking clear academic methodology may be rejected at the initial screening stage without being sent to external reviewers.

Plagiarism and Similarity Check

Before being sent to reviewers, each article will undergo a similarity check using plagiarism detection software. The editorial team does not rely only on the similarity percentage but also examines the nature of textual overlap. Similarity caused by improper citation, unattributed paraphrasing, duplicate publication, or excessive reuse of previous work may lead to rejection.

Articles must be original and must not have been published previously or be under review by another journal. Any suspected case of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication, citation manipulation, or unethical authorship will be handled according to the journal’s publication ethics policy.

Reviewer Assignment

Articles that pass the initial editorial screening will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the article’s subject area. Reviewers may be selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, methodological competence, and absence of conflict of interest.

The journal seeks to involve reviewers from diverse institutional and geographical backgrounds whenever possible. Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must decline the invitation.

Double-Blind Review

The journal applies a double-blind review system. Authors must remove all identifying information from the article file before submission. Reviewers are also required to maintain confidentiality and must not disclose, share, or use any part of the article for personal or academic advantage before publication.

Reviewers evaluate the article based on the following criteria:

relevance to the journal’s Focus and Scope;

originality and novelty of the study;

clarity of research problem and objectives;

strength of theoretical framework;

appropriateness of research method;

quality of data, textual evidence, or primary sources;

depth of analysis and discussion;

engagement with previous scholarship;

contribution to Qur’anic and Hadith studies;

clarity of abstract, structure, and argumentation;

accuracy of citation and references;

academic language and readability;

and compliance with publication ethics.

Review Outcomes

After completing the review process, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

Accept Submission
The article is accepted without substantial revision.

Minor Revision
The article requires limited revision related to clarity, structure, citation, language, or minor analytical improvements.

Major Revision
The article requires substantial revision related to argument, method, theoretical framework, data analysis, literature engagement, or overall scholarly contribution.

Reject and Resubmit
The article has potential but requires fundamental restructuring before it can be considered as a new submission.

Reject Submission
The article does not meet the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor based on reviewers’ reports, editorial assessment, and the journal’s publication standards.

Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised article along with a response letter. The response letter should explain how each reviewer’s comment has been addressed. Authors should indicate clearly where changes have been made in the revised article.

For minor revisions, the revised article may be evaluated by the editor. For major revisions, the article may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers when necessary. Failure to respond adequately to reviewers’ comments may result in rejection.

Editorial Decision

The editorial team makes the final decision based on the quality of the revised article, the adequacy of the authors’ responses, the reviewers’ recommendations, and the article’s contribution to the journal’s scholarly orientation.

The journal reserves the right to reject an article at any stage if serious ethical concerns, methodological weaknesses, plagiarism, duplicate submission, authorship disputes, or major inconsistencies are identified.

Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the initial editorial screening within 1–2 weeks after submission. The peer review process normally takes 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the article. The total time from submission to final decision may vary depending on the number and quality of revision rounds required.

Authors will be informed of the editorial decision through the journal’s online submission system.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must treat all submitted articles as confidential documents. They must not disclose any information about submitted articles to anyone other than those involved in the editorial and review process.

Reviewers are not allowed to use unpublished materials from submitted articles in their own research without the written consent of the authors. Editors must also ensure that all review records and editorial communications are handled confidentially.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must decline involvement in any article where they have a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest may include personal, academic, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationships with the authors or their institutions.

If a conflict of interest is identified after the review process has begun, the editor may appoint a new reviewer or reassign the article to another editor.

Ethical Responsibility of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations. Review reports should focus on the academic quality of the article and should not contain personal criticism, discriminatory language, or unsupported judgments.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors where appropriate. They should also inform the editor of any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, citation manipulation, or ethical misconduct.

Final Acceptance and Copyediting

Articles accepted for publication will undergo copyediting, layout editing, and final proofreading. Authors are responsible for checking the final proof carefully before publication. No major changes to content, authorship, or structure are allowed after final acceptance without editorial approval.

The publication of an accepted article remains subject to completion of all editorial, ethical, technical, and production requirements.

Peer Review Integrity

Dialogues in Qur’anic and Hadith Studies is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, and academically rigorous peer review process. The journal does not tolerate fake peer review, fabricated reviewer identities, coercive citation practices, editorial manipulation, or any form of unethical publication practice.

The journal continuously evaluates its peer review process to ensure editorial independence, academic quality, and international scholarly relevance.