Reviewers Guidelines

1. General Policy

Al-Mada: Jurnal Agama, Sosial, dan Budaya applies a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of all manuscripts submitted for publication. The review process is designed to maintain high scholarly standards, promote constructive academic dialogue, and ensure that publication decisions are based on the scientific merit of each manuscript.

All research articles submitted to the journal are subject to editorial screening and peer review. Submission does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

Falls within the journal’s focus and scope.
Complies with the journal’s author guidelines and manuscript format.
Demonstrates sufficient originality, academic relevance, and scholarly contribution.
Meets basic standards of research methodology, structure, and academic writing.
Includes appropriate citations and references and complies with publication ethics requirements.
Provides the necessary statements regarding research ethics, funding, conflicts of interest, and the use of artificial intelligence, where applicable.

The editorial team may return a manuscript to the author for technical revisions or reject it at this stage if it does not meet the journal’s requirements.

3. Peer-Review Model

Al-Mada applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter. As a general practice, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Authors are required to ensure that their manuscripts do not contain information that unnecessarily reveals their identities in the anonymized manuscript file. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and declare any potential conflicts of interest before undertaking the review.

4. Review Criteria

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

Relevance and scope: The manuscript’s suitability for the journal’s focus and scope.
Originality and contribution: The novelty, significance, and contribution of the manuscript to the relevant field of study.
Literature review: The adequacy, relevance, and critical engagement with existing scholarship.
Theoretical and conceptual framework: The clarity and appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual foundations.
Research methodology: The suitability, transparency, and rigor of the research design and methods, where applicable.
Analysis and discussion: The depth of analysis, strength of argumentation, and consistency between evidence and conclusions.
Academic writing and organization: The clarity, coherence, structure, and readability of the manuscript.
References and citation practices: The accuracy, relevance, and adequacy of citations and references.
Ethical compliance: Adherence to applicable research ethics and publication integrity standards.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments to help the editor reach an informed decision and assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s independent assessment, the editorial team may make one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any final editorial and technical requirements.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision can be made.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is unsuitable for publication.

The editor makes the final publication decision. Reviewer recommendations are important considerations but are not automatically binding on the editor.

6. Revision and Reassessment

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editorial team. A point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments should accompany the revised manuscript, explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing a reasoned response where a suggestion has not been adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor or returned to the original reviewers, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions. Failure to submit revisions within the specified period, without an approved extension, may result in the manuscript being closed or treated as withdrawn.

7. Review Timeline

The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required. The editorial team makes reasonable efforts to process submissions in a timely manner and to inform authors of significant developments in the review process.

Any review timeline displayed by the journal should be understood as an estimate rather than a guarantee.

8. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Editors and reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and all related correspondence as confidential. Manuscripts must not be used for personal advantage or shared with unauthorized parties.

Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when their impartiality may be compromised. Reviews must be conducted professionally, fairly, and without discriminatory or personal remarks.

Authors must respond honestly to editorial queries and reviewers’ comments and must not attempt to influence reviewers or circumvent the established review process.

Any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate submission, undisclosed conflict of interest, or other research misconduct will be handled in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement.

9. Editorial Independence

Publication decisions are based on the manuscript’s academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and compliance with ethical standards. Decisions must not be influenced by the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, political views, or commercial interests.

The editor-in-chief and editorial team retain responsibility for ensuring that the review process is fair, transparent, and consistent with the journal’s publication policies.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the editorial team at almada@uac.ac.id. The appeal must clearly identify the decision being challenged and provide specific academic or procedural grounds for reconsideration.

Appeals are assessed by the editorial team, which may seek additional independent advice when necessary. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial procedures, or possible breaches of publication ethics will be handled in accordance with the journal’s applicable policies.

11. Contact Information

For questions regarding the review process, authors may contact:

Editorial Office
Al-Mada: Jurnal Agama, Sosial, dan Budaya
Email: almada@uac.ac.id