The journal adheres to a rigorous, multi-stage peer review protocol designed to ensure the highest standards of academic excellence:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

   All submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief to determine their suitability for the journal's scope and their adherence to basic submission requirements. Manuscripts that fail to meet these fundamental criteria, including those exhibiting evidence of plagiarism exceeding 25% similarity (as determined through Turnitin software), are subject to immediate rejection at this stage.

2. Assignment to Section Editors

   Manuscripts that pass initial screening are forwarded to the relevant section editor, who assumes responsibility for identifying and engaging appropriate peer reviewers based on the submission's specific disciplinary focus and methodological approach.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

   Each qualifying manuscript is subjected to evaluation by a minimum of two independent scholars possessing relevant expertise. Reviewers remain anonymous to authors throughout the process, and authors' identities are similarly concealed from reviewers. The peer review assessment encompasses the following critical dimensions:

   • Theoretical Contribution: The extent to which the work offers novel conceptual insights or challenges existing paradigms in Islamic Nusantara studies.
   • Methodological Rigor: The appropriateness and sophistication of the research design, including the critical engagement with primary and secondary sources.
   • Empirical Substance: The quality, relevance, and interpretive depth of the evidentiary base supporting the manuscript's arguments.
   • Scholarly Contextualization: The adequacy of the work's engagement with current scholarship and its potential to advance academic discourse.
   • Presentation and Clarity: The effectiveness of the manuscript's organization, argumentation, and adherence to academic writing conventions.
4. Editorial Decision and Author Notification

   Based on the comprehensive evaluations provided by peer reviewers, the editorial team arrives at one of the following determinations:

   • Acceptance: Granted when a manuscript requires only minor revisions to address stylistic or presentational matters.
   • Conditional Acceptance: Offered when substantive revisions are necessary to strengthen the work's arguments or evidentiary support, with specified deadlines for resubmission.
   • Rejection: Applied when fundamental flaws in methodology, argumentation, or originality cannot be remedied through revision.
5. Revision and Resubmission Process

   Authors receiving requests for revision are expected to:

   • Address all reviewer comments systematically in a separate response letter.
   • Highlight all modifications made to the manuscript through track changes or similar documentation.
   • Resubmit the revised version within the stipulated timeframe (typically 4-6 weeks for minor revisions, 8-12 weeks for major revisions).
6. Final Editorial Review and Production

   The editorial team conducts a thorough verification of revised manuscripts to ensure satisfactory implementation of requested changes before proceeding to copyediting and typesetting in preparation for publication.

Review Timeline: The complete peer review process, from initial submission to final decision, typically requires 8-12 weeks, though complex cases may necessitate extended periods.