Peer Review Process

Akademika is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the Akademika for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer-review method is employed to maintain quality standards and credibility for the papers. The peer review at this journal proceeds in 9 steps with the description as follows.

 

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). However, to facilitate authors, Akademika temporarily also accepts paper submissions by email.

 

The Akademika editor first assesses the submitted paper. The editor checks whether it suits the Journal's focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to ensure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Turnitin will check every submitted paper which passes this step to identify any plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.

 

The Editor-in-Chief checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

 

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be an appropriate reviewer (also known as referees) based on expertise, the closeness of research interest, and no conflict of interest consideration. The peer-review process at Akademika involves a community of experts in a narrowly defined field of Islamic Studies specifically related to the journal focus and scope who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial reviews.  The impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review employed in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the author's identity. Conversely, the author does not know the reviewer's identity.  The paper is sent to reviewers anonymously.

 

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer for suggestions for an alternative reviewer when he or she declines to review.

 

The reviewers allocate time to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewers may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it or else with a revision request (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

 

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain an extra opinion before deciding.

 

The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any comments from the relevant reviewer. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.

 

If accepted, the paper will be sent for copy-editing. If the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers' comments and instructions.

 

After revision, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor.

 

If the paper was returned for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, the handling editor might do this follow-up review.

 

If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is accepted. The accepted papers will be published online and are freely available as downloadable PDF files.