Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Multidisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Islamic Discourse (MJCID) undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, and scholarly relevance. The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, transparency, and fairness throughout the editorial and review stages.

1. Initial Editorial Screening:
   Each submitted manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team to assess its conformity with the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with submission guidelines, originality, and overall academic quality. The editors may also conduct a preliminary similarity check at this stage. Manuscripts that do not meet the basic criteria, fall outside the journal’s scope, or fail to follow formatting requirements will be returned to the authors without proceeding to external review.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review:
   Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are forwarded to at least two independent reviewers who possess relevant expertise in the subject area. The review process follows a double-blind system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure objectivity, impartiality, and fairness. Reviewers are selected based on their academic competence, research experience, and familiarity with the manuscript’s topic.
3. Review Evaluation Criteria and Outcomes:
   Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria, including:
   • Originality and novelty of the research
   • Theoretical framework and methodological rigor
   • Clarity of argumentation and organization
   • Relevance to contemporary Islamic discourse and scholarly contribution
   • Adequacy of references and engagement with relevant literature
   Based on their assessment, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
   • Accept without revision
   • Accept with minor revisions
   • Revise and resubmit (major revisions required)
   • Reject
4. Revision and Resubmission:
   Authors receiving revision requests are given a specified period to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. Authors are expected to provide a detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly in cases requiring major revisions.
5. Final Editorial Decision:
   The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration the reviewers’ recommendations, the quality of revisions, and the manuscript’s overall contribution to the field. The Editor-in-Chief retains the authority to make the final determination.
6. Plagiarism Screening:
   All manuscripts accepted for publication undergo a plagiarism screening process using recognized similarity-detection software to ensure academic integrity and ethical compliance. Manuscripts found to contain significant plagiarism or unethical practices will be rejected.

The entire review process typically takes approximately 4–8 weeks, depending on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the responsiveness of the authors during the revision stage.