Peer Review Process

The peer review process of Tsiqah: Jurnal Studi Hadis dan Tradisi Kenabian is designed to ensure academic quality, methodological rigor, originality, ethical integrity, and scholarly contribution to the field of Hadith studies and Prophetic traditions. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated through several editorial and scholarly stages before a final publication decision is made. The review process is conducted transparently, objectively, and in accordance with international academic publishing standards.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Every manuscript submitted to Tsiqah: Jurnal Studi Hadis dan Tradisi Kenabian is first reviewed by the editorial team to assess its suitability for the journal. At this stage, the editors examine whether the manuscript fits the journal’s Focus and Scope, follows the Author Guidelines, uses the official journal template, contains complete metadata, and demonstrates sufficient academic quality for peer review.

The editorial team also checks the manuscript for originality, clarity of research problem, methodological appropriateness, relevance of references, quality of writing, and compliance with publication ethics. Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, purely devotional, polemical, descriptive without analytical contribution, methodologically unclear, or not prepared according to the journal guidelines may be rejected at this stage without external review.

2. Similarity and Ethical Screening

Before being sent to reviewers, manuscripts are screened for similarity and potential ethical issues. The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, self-plagiarism, citation manipulation, data fabrication, duplicate submission, ghost authorship, guest authorship, or other forms of publication misconduct.

The acceptable similarity level is normally below 20%, excluding references, quotations, and standard technical expressions. However, the editorial team does not rely solely on numerical similarity scores. The nature, source, and seriousness of textual overlap are carefully evaluated.

Manuscripts containing serious plagiarism or unethical publication practices will be rejected.

3. Assignment to Section Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a Section Editor whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript topic. The Section Editor is responsible for evaluating the manuscript’s scholarly relevance, identifying appropriate reviewers, monitoring the review process, and providing an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Section Editor may recommend rejection before external review if the manuscript does not meet the journal’s minimum academic standard, even if it formally fits the journal’s scope.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who have expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic, method, and disciplinary orientation. Reviewers may be selected from the journal’s reviewer database, editorial networks, or external academic communities.

Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, publication record, academic integrity, and absence of conflict of interest. Reviewers must not have personal, institutional, financial, or academic conflicts with the authors or the submitted manuscript.

If the two reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may invite an additional reviewer or make a decision based on the strength and quality of the review reports.

5. Double-Blind Review

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process. Authors must remove all identifying information from the manuscript file before submission. This includes author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, self-identifying statements, and metadata that may reveal the authors’ identities.

Reviewers are also required to maintain confidentiality and must not disclose, distribute, or use any part of the manuscript for personal or academic advantage before publication.

6. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s Focus and Scope;

the clarity and significance of the research problem;

the originality and novelty of the study;

the strength of the theoretical framework;

the appropriateness and transparency of the method;

the quality of data, textual evidence, manuscript sources, digital corpus, or field materials;

the depth of analysis and argumentation;

the engagement with relevant national and international scholarship;

the contribution to Hadith studies and Prophetic traditions;

the consistency of citation and reference style;

the clarity, coherence, and academic quality of writing;

and compliance with publication ethics.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, specific, and academically grounded comments to help authors improve the manuscript.

7. Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewers’ reports, the Section Editor evaluates the recommendations and submits an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers’ comments, the Section Editor’s assessment, the manuscript’s scholarly contribution, and its relevance to the journal.

The possible editorial decisions are:

Accepted
The manuscript is accepted without substantial revision.

Accepted with Minor Revisions
The manuscript requires minor improvements before publication.

Revised and Resubmitted
The manuscript requires substantial revision and may be sent for another round of review.

Rejected
The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

The editorial decision is final and communicated to the corresponding author through the OJS system.

8. Revision Process

Authors who receive a revision decision must revise their manuscript carefully based on the reviewers’ and editors’ comments. Revised manuscripts must be accompanied by a response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Authors should respond to reviewers’ comments respectfully, systematically, and point by point. If authors disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion, they must provide a clear academic justification.

Failure to submit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline may result in withdrawal from the editorial process.

9. Review Timeline

The journal aims to conduct the peer review process efficiently while maintaining academic quality. The estimated timeline is as follows:

initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks;

reviewer assignment: 1–2 weeks;

peer review process: 3–6 weeks;

author revision: 2–4 weeks;

final editorial decision: 1–2 weeks;

copyediting and production: 2–4 weeks.

The timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, number of revision rounds, and editorial workload.

10. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to Tsiqah: Jurnal Studi Hadis dan Tradisi Kenabian are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than those directly involved in the editorial and review process.

Reviewers must not use unpublished materials, arguments, data, or ideas obtained through the peer review process for personal research or academic advantage.

11. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must declare any conflict of interest that may affect the fairness and objectivity of the review process. A conflict of interest may include personal relationships, institutional affiliation, academic competition, financial interest, or previous collaboration with the author.

If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer or editor must withdraw from the review process, and the manuscript will be assigned to another qualified reviewer or editor.

12. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and constructively. Reviewers should focus on the quality of the research problem, methodology, analysis, evidence, argumentation, originality, and contribution to the field.

Reviewers should not use offensive, discriminatory, or personal language in their reports. Review comments must be professional, evidence-based, and aimed at improving the manuscript.

Reviewers who feel unqualified to review a manuscript or unable to complete the review within the required time should notify the editor as soon as possible.

13. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently based on academic merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, originality, and relevance to the journal’s Focus and Scope. Decisions are not influenced by the author’s nationality, religion, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, academic rank, or political position.

The editorial team is committed to maintaining fairness, transparency, and integrity in every stage of the publication process.

14. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that an editorial decision was made based on a misunderstanding, factual error, or procedural irregularity. Appeals must be submitted in writing and must provide clear academic reasons.

The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may consult the Section Editor, reviewers, or additional experts where necessary. The result of the appeal process is final.

Complaints related to editorial procedures, publication ethics, reviewer conduct, or conflicts of interest will be handled by the editorial team in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy.

15. Post-Publication Review and Corrections

After publication, the journal may issue corrections, clarifications, expressions of concern, or retractions if significant errors or ethical problems are identified. Any post-publication action will be handled carefully and transparently according to the seriousness of the issue.

Authors are responsible for notifying the editorial office if they discover significant errors in their published work.

16. Final Publication

Manuscripts accepted for publication will proceed to copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and final production. Authors are required to check the proof carefully before publication.

The journal reserves the right to make minor editorial corrections to improve clarity, consistency, grammar, formatting, citation style, and metadata without changing the substance of the manuscript.

Only manuscripts that have completed the peer review, revision, copyediting, and proofreading stages will be published.