1. General Policy

The International Journal of Islamic Education, Research and Multiculturalism (IJIERM) is committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly quality, editorial independence, research integrity, and transparency throughout the publication process.

All original research articles and scholarly review articles submitted to IJIERM are subject to preliminary editorial assessment. Manuscripts that meet the journal's minimum academic, ethical, and technical requirements are considered for independent peer review.

IJIERM adopts a double-anonymous peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. This system is intended to promote impartiality, minimize potential bias, and support fair, rigorous, and constructive scholarly evaluation.

Each manuscript proceeding to external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the relevant research field. Additional reviewers may be appointed when necessary to resolve substantially conflicting evaluations or assess specialized methodological or disciplinary issues.

The peer review process evaluates manuscripts according to their originality, academic significance, methodological rigor, theoretical relevance, validity of findings, scholarly contribution, ethical integrity, and alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope.

Editorial decisions are made independently on the basis of scholarly merit and the available review evidence, without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, religious beliefs, gender, political orientation, or other personal characteristics unrelated to academic quality.

2. Double-Anonymous Peer Review Policy

IJIERM implements double-anonymous peer review to protect the impartiality and confidentiality of manuscript evaluation.

Under this system:

1. Reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities or institutional affiliations through the anonymized review manuscript.

2. Authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.

3. Editors are responsible for checking that manuscripts have been appropriately anonymized before external review.

4. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding manuscripts, review reports, research materials, and editorial correspondence.

5. Authors must prepare an anonymized manuscript version when requested, removing identifying information that is unnecessary for scholarly assessment.

6. Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors or communicate with them directly concerning a manuscript under review.

7. All scholarly communication between authors and reviewers is managed through the responsible editor or the journal's editorial system.

Authors should remove identifying details from the review manuscript while preserving information necessary for methodological transparency and research reproducibility.

Although appropriate anonymization procedures are applied, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when research topics, preprints, datasets, or publicly available materials may reveal an author's identity.

3. Stages of the Peer Review Process

IJIERM follows a structured editorial and peer review workflow consisting of the stages described below.

Stage 1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the official IJIERM Online Journal System (OJS).

Before submission, authors must ensure that their manuscripts comply with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, manuscript template, ethical policies, and submission requirements.

Submitted manuscripts must include accurate metadata and all necessary declarations or supporting documents.

Submission of a manuscript does not imply acceptance for publication.

Stage 2. Preliminary Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's minimum academic, technical, and ethical requirements.

The preliminary assessment considers:

1. Relevance to Islamic Education, Islamic Studies, or Multicultural Studies.

2. Compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript template.

3. Clarity and appropriateness of the title, abstracts, and keywords.

4. Originality and academic relevance of the research problem.

5. Identification of a meaningful research gap and scholarly contribution.

6. Adequacy and transparency of the research methodology.

7. Completeness and consistency of the manuscript structure.

8. Quality and relevance of the references.

9. Academic English and readability.

10. Compliance with research ethics and publication integrity requirements.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's Focus and Scope or fail to meet essential scholarly standards may be rejected during the preliminary screening without external peer review.

Manuscripts with correctable technical or formatting deficiencies may be returned to the authors for revision before further editorial consideration.

Stage 3. Originality and Similarity Screening

Manuscripts passing the initial assessment undergo originality and similarity screening using Turnitin or comparable software.

IJIERM applies a similarity index of 25% as an initial screening reference in accordance with its Author Guidelines.

However, a similarity percentage alone does not establish whether plagiarism or another form of academic misconduct has occurred.

Editors examine the nature, extent, location, attribution, and context of overlapping material.

Manuscripts containing plagiarism, fabricated references, substantial unattributed text reproduction, or other serious integrity concerns may be rejected or subjected to further investigation regardless of the numerical similarity score.

Stage 4. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

The responsible editor selects at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise and appropriate research experience.

Reviewer selection is based on:

1. Subject-specific expertise.

2. Relevant scholarly publications and research experience.

3. Competence in the manuscript's theoretical or methodological approach.

4. Independence from the authors and research project.

5. Absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

6. Availability to complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers should ordinarily be affiliated with institutions different from those of the authors and should not have relationships that could compromise the impartiality of their evaluation.

Reviewers must disclose potential financial, professional, academic, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation.

Editors may invite additional reviewers if a manuscript requires specialized expertise or if the original reviewer reports differ substantially.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers where permitted by the journal, but the editorial team retains full responsibility for verifying reviewer identities, expertise, independence, and suitability.

The journal does not guarantee the appointment of author-suggested reviewers.

Stage 5. Independent Peer Review

Reviewers independently assess manuscripts according to the journal's academic and ethical evaluation criteria.

The review must be objective, constructive, evidence-based, and sufficiently detailed to support editorial decision-making and meaningful manuscript improvement.

Reviewers evaluate the following components.

A. Title, Abstract, and Keywords

Reviewers assess the clarity, precision, academic relevance, and consistency of the title, abstracts, and keywords with the manuscript's objectives, methods, findings, and contribution.

B. Introduction

Reviewers assess the research background, scholarly significance, relevant literature, research gap, novelty, objectives, and appropriateness of the research questions or hypotheses.

C. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Reviewers assess the quality of scholarly synthesis, theoretical relevance, critical engagement with previous studies, conceptual clarity, and adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework.

D. Research Methods

Reviewers evaluate the appropriateness of the research design, sampling procedures, data sources, research instruments, data collection methods, analytical techniques, research quality safeguards, and ethical compliance.

E. Results

The Results subsection must be evaluated based on the accuracy, clarity, systematic presentation, and evidential support of the research findings.

Results must present research findings without engaging in theoretical dialogue or comparative discussion with previous studies.

Reviewers assess whether the findings are consistent with the reported methods and supported by authentic empirical data, documentary evidence, statistical analyses, or other verifiable research materials.

The Results subsection must not be used for extensive theoretical interpretation or comparison with previous research.

F. Discussion

The Discussion subsection must be evaluated based on its critical interpretation of the findings and its substantive scholarly engagement with relevant theories and previous research.

Discussion must establish an explicit analytical dialogue between the research findings, theoretical perspectives, and relevant previous empirical studies.

Reviewers assess whether the authors explain how their findings support, extend, refine, or challenge existing knowledge and whether the manuscript clearly articulates its scholarly novelty, contributions, implications, and limitations.

G. Conclusion

Reviewers evaluate whether the conclusions directly address the research objectives, accurately synthesize the principal findings, and provide appropriately supported scholarly implications or recommendations.

H. References and Academic Integrity

Reviewers assess the relevance, quality, accuracy, and appropriate use of scholarly references, including compliance with APA 7th edition.

Reviewers should identify potential problems involving unsupported citations, questionable references, research ethics, methodological inconsistencies, or other publication integrity concerns.

Stage 6. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers submit written evaluations through the journal's editorial system.

Review reports should contain:

1. An overall assessment of the manuscript's scholarly quality.

2. Identification of its principal strengths.

3. Specific comments on weaknesses or methodological limitations.

4. Constructive recommendations for improving the manuscript.

5. Clear identification of essential revisions.

6. An overall recommendation to the editor.

Reviewer recommendations may include:

• Accept.

• Minor Revision.

• Major Revision.

• Reject.

A recommendation from a reviewer is advisory and does not constitute the final editorial decision.

Reviewers must not use the review process to promote personal interests, request unnecessary citations to their own publications, or obtain confidential research information for unauthorized purposes.

Stage 7. Editorial Evaluation and Initial Decision

After receiving the reviewer reports, the responsible editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer comments, and relevant editorial requirements.

The editor considers the quality of the reviews, the seriousness of the identified concerns, the manuscript's scholarly contribution, and the extent of revisions required.

Possible editorial decisions include:

A. Accept

The manuscript meets the journal's academic and ethical standards and requires no substantive revision.

B. Minor Revision

The manuscript is academically promising and requires limited clarification, correction, or improvement that does not substantially change its research design, principal findings, or scholarly argument.

C. Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial improvement in one or more important components, such as theoretical framing, methodological explanation, analysis, interpretation, or scholarly contribution.

D. Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's essential academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements, or its deficiencies cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

E. Further Evaluation

Additional review may be requested when reviewer recommendations substantially conflict or when specialized expertise is required.

Editors are not required to follow reviewer recommendations mechanically. Any decision that substantially differs from the available review recommendations must have a documented scholarly justification.

Stage 8. Author Revision and Response to Reviewers

Authors receiving a revision decision must address the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully and systematically.

Revised submissions must include:

1. A revised manuscript.

2. A point-by-point response to all reviewer and editorial comments.

3. Clear identification of significant changes.

4. Academic justification for any recommendation that has not been adopted.

5. Revised tables, figures, references, or supplementary materials where required.

The journal may establish the following revision deadlines as operational targets:

• Minor Revision: approximately 14 calendar days.

• Major Revision: approximately 28 calendar days.

Authors who require additional time should contact the editorial team before the revision deadline.

A revised manuscript is not automatically accepted.

Stage 9. Re-evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

The responsible editor assesses whether the authors have adequately addressed the requested revisions.

Manuscripts requiring minor revisions may be reassessed by the editor without an additional external review when the changes are sufficiently straightforward.

Manuscripts undergoing major revision may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to appropriately qualified additional reviewers when necessary.

The editor may request further revision, seek additional expert evaluation, accept the manuscript, or reject it based on the quality and completeness of the revised work.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance following one or more rounds of revision.

Stage 10. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor operating under the journal's editorial governance procedures.

Final decisions must be based on:

1. Academic quality and originality.

2. Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

3. Methodological rigor.

4. Validity and clarity of research findings.

5. Quality of theoretical interpretation and scholarly discussion.

6. Responses to reviewer comments.

7. Compliance with research and publication ethics.

8. Overall scholarly contribution.

Editorial independence must be maintained throughout the decision-making process.

Stage 11. Copyediting, Production, and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, and final publication checks.

The production process includes verification of:

• Academic English and consistency of terminology.

• Author names and institutional affiliations.

• Titles, abstracts, and keywords.

• Tables, figures, captions, and references.

• DOI and bibliographic metadata.

• Article structure and formatting.

• Ethical declarations and relevant publication information.

Authors may be asked to review final proofs to identify production errors.

Substantive changes to accepted research findings or conclusions require editorial approval.

Accepted articles are published according to the journal's editorial production schedule and open-access publication policy.

4. Peer Review Timeline

IJIERM aims to provide a timely and rigorous review process without compromising the quality or independence of editorial assessment.

The following timelines are recommended as operational targets:

Editorial Activity	Target Time
Preliminary editorial screening	7–14 calendar days
Reviewer invitation and assignment	Approximately 7–14 days
External peer review	Approximately 21–28 days after reviewer acceptance
Minor revision	Approximately 14 days
Major revision	Approximately 28 days
Re-evaluation	Depending on the nature of the revisions

These timeframes are indicative rather than guaranteed. Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and additional ethical or methodological evaluations.

Authors will be informed when substantial delays affect the editorial process.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed timeframe.

5. Responsibilities of Reviewers

All reviewers are expected to uphold principles of professional responsibility, confidentiality, impartiality, and scholarly integrity.

Reviewers must:

1. Accept assignments only when they possess appropriate expertise.

2. Declare relevant conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation.

3. Evaluate manuscripts objectively and without discrimination.

4. Provide constructive, specific, and academically justified comments.

5. Respect the confidentiality of manuscripts and editorial correspondence.

6. Avoid unauthorized use or disclosure of unpublished research materials.

7. Inform editors promptly when serious ethical concerns are identified.

8. Complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe or notify the editor when additional time is required.

9. Avoid coercive citation requests or recommendations motivated by personal interests.

10. Obtain editorial permission before involving another individual in the review.

Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to external generative AI systems without explicit journal authorization and appropriate safeguards.

Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, independence, and integrity of their assessments.

6. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions must be based exclusively on academic merit, relevance, methodological quality, scholarly contribution, and publication ethics.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any relationships or circumstances that could reasonably compromise their impartiality.

Potential conflicts include close personal relationships, recent academic collaboration, shared financial interests, direct institutional relationships, competitive interests, or involvement in the research under consideration.

Where a significant conflict exists, the affected editor or reviewer must withdraw from the evaluation or be replaced.

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or individuals with close relationships to the journal must undergo independent evaluation managed by an editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

Such manuscripts are subject to the same academic and ethical standards as all other submissions.

7. Confidentiality and Research Integrity

All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential scholarly communications.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript contents, unpublished findings, research data, reviewer identities, or confidential editorial information to unauthorized parties.

Suspected plagiarism, fabricated data, falsified findings, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, compromised peer review, or other integrity concerns must be reported confidentially to the editorial team.

The journal may request clarification or supporting documentation, suspend editorial evaluation, consult additional experts, or refer concerns to relevant institutions when warranted.

Publication ethics concerns are handled according to the journal's Publication Ethics policy and applicable scholarly publishing standards.

8. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they believe that a material procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or significant evaluation issue has occurred.

An appeal must provide a clear, evidence-based explanation of the grounds for reconsideration.

Disagreement with an unfavorable editorial decision alone does not establish grounds for an appeal.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another authorized editor who was not involved in the disputed decision whenever possible.

Additional independent evaluation may be requested when necessary.

The outcome of an appeal is communicated to the corresponding author. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial integrity, conflicts of interest, or procedural irregularities are assessed confidentially and independently where appropriate.

9. Documentation and Transparency

IJIERM maintains appropriate records of manuscript submissions, reviewer assignments, review reports, author revisions, editorial decisions, and relevant correspondence through its editorial management system.

Such records support transparency, accountability, quality assurance, and the integrity of the scholarly publication process.

The identities of anonymous reviewers and confidential review materials are protected in accordance with the journal's peer review and privacy policies.

The journal may periodically review its editorial performance, including manuscript processing times, review completion rates, editorial decisions, and procedural compliance, to support continuous quality improvement.

10. Commitment to Scholarly Excellence

IJIERM is committed to ensuring that published articles make meaningful contributions to Islamic Education, Islamic Studies, and Multicultural Studies.

Through independent peer review, transparent editorial procedures, responsible scholarly evaluation, and rigorous publication ethics, the journal seeks to promote original research, critical academic dialogue, interdisciplinary scholarship, and international knowledge exchange.

All authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to comply with the journal's Author Guidelines, Focus and Scope, Publication Ethics, and Peer Review Process.