Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for Multidisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Islamic Discourse (MJCID). Your scholarly expertise and critical insights are essential in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, and reputation of the journal. As a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, MJCID relies on the professionalism, objectivity, and ethical responsibility of its reviewers to ensure the publication of high-quality research in contemporary Islamic discourse. Please carefully consider the following guidelines to assist you throughout the review process.

1. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, or discuss the manuscript or its contents with others without explicit authorization from the editorial board. The manuscript may not be used for personal research advantage or any other purpose prior to publication. If consultation with a colleague is deemed necessary, prior approval from the editor must be obtained.

2. Objectivity, Fairness, and Professionalism

Reviews must be conducted objectively, impartially, and constructively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Evaluations should focus solely on the academic merit, clarity, originality, methodology, and contribution of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide balanced feedback, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement in a respectful and professional manner.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have any potential conflict of interest, including personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationships with the authors or related organizations. Any suspected conflict of interest must be disclosed to the editor immediately.

4. Evaluation Criteria

In reviewing the manuscript, please assess it based on the following academic criteria:

  • Relevance and Scope: Is the topic aligned with the aims and scope of MJCID and relevant to contemporary Islamic discourse?
  • Originality and Innovation: Does the manuscript present new perspectives, theoretical insights, empirical findings, or methodological approaches?
  • Theoretical Framework and Methodological Rigor: Are the conceptual foundations clear and appropriate? Is the research methodology sound, coherent, and adequately described?
  • Argumentation and Analytical Depth: Are the arguments logically structured, critically developed, and supported by relevant evidence and references?
  • Literature Engagement: Does the manuscript engage meaningfully with relevant and up-to-date scholarly literature?
  • Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-structured, clearly written, and academically coherent?
  • Scholarly Contribution: Does the study contribute significantly to multidisciplinary Islamic studies and broader academic discourse?

5. Review Recommendations

After completing your evaluation, please select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions required)
  • Reject

Clear and detailed justification must be provided for your recommendation, particularly in cases requiring revision or rejection. Specific references to sections, arguments, or methodological issues are highly encouraged to assist authors in improving their work.

6. Comments to Authors

Please provide constructive, detailed, and actionable feedback to the authors. Identify both the strengths of the manuscript and specific areas that require clarification, revision, or further development. Comments should be respectful, professional, and aimed at enhancing the academic quality of the submission.

7. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may submit confidential remarks to the Editor-in-Chief regarding concerns that should not be communicated directly to the authors, such as potential ethical issues, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other forms of academic misconduct.

8. Ethical Responsibilities

If you suspect plagiarism, citation manipulation, unethical research practices, or any breach of academic integrity, please notify the editorial board immediately. MJCID adheres to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and expects reviewers to uphold these principles.

9. Timeliness

Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe, typically 2–4 weeks. If you anticipate delays or are unable to complete the review, please inform the editor as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.

The editorial team of MJCID sincerely appreciates your valuable contribution to sustaining the scholarly excellence and integrity of the journal.