Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Contemporary Islamic Law (JCIL) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity, academic quality, and ethical publishing. All manuscripts submitted to JCIL undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure originality, methodological soundness, and significant contribution to the field of contemporary Islamic law. Under the double-blind review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. Authors are therefore required to remove all identifying information from the manuscript before submission.

Peer Review Process

Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is first assessed by the Editorial Office to determine whether it complies with the journal’s submission requirements. This initial evaluation includes:

• Compliance with the journal’s aims and scope;
• Adherence to the author guidelines and formatting requirements;
• Originality screening using plagiarism detection software;
• Completeness of submission files and required declarations; and
• Suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that fail to meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or rejected without external review.

Assignment to an Editor

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to an Editor or Associate Editor with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area. The assigned editor conducts a preliminary academic assessment before selecting appropriate reviewers.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Each eligible manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers possessing relevant expertise in the manuscript’s discipline.

Reviewers are invited based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and publication record. Throughout the review process:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers;
• Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the review invitation;
• Reviews are conducted objectively, confidentially, and in accordance with JCIL’s publication ethics.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:

• Originality and novelty;
• Relevance to contemporary Islamic law;
• Significance and scholarly contribution;
• Theoretical and methodological rigour;
• Accuracy of legal and Islamic sources;
• Quality of analysis and discussion;
• Clarity, organisation, and academic writing;
• Adequacy of references and citation practices.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the handling editor will make one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent review before reaching a final decision.

The Editor-in-Chief retains the final authority regarding all editorial decisions.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to:

• Revise the manuscript within the specified timeframe;
• Submit a clean revised manuscript;
• Provide a detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

Final Decision

Once the manuscript satisfies the reviewers and editor, the Editor-in-Chief issues the final acceptance decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed through:

• Copyediting;
• Layout editing and typesetting;
• Proofreading by authors;
• Final publication in the assigned issue.

Estimated Timeline

Although review duration may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity, JCIL aims to maintain the following review schedule:

The average time from submission to the first decision is approximately 6–8 weeks, while the average time from acceptance to publication is approximately 4–8 weeks, depending on the publication schedule.

JCIL adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing jointly developed by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association), and WAME (World Association of Medical Editors). The journal is committed to ensuring a fair, timely, confidential, and independent peer review process that upholds the quality and integrity of published research.