Review guidelines

Al-‘Allāmah: Journal of Scriptures and Ulama Studies

Responsibility of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are responsible for evaluating manuscripts within their area of expertise by providing constructive, objective, and honest feedback to the author. Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, suggest ways to improve the clarity, quality, and rigor of the paper, and evaluate its relevance, originality, and scholarly contribution.

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should consider the following:

Relevance to Expertise: Ensure that the article aligns with your area of expertise. If the manuscript falls outside your competence, please notify the editor and, if possible, recommend another qualified reviewer.
Availability: Confirm that you have sufficient time to complete the review within the given deadline (two weeks). If more time is needed, please inform the editor immediately.
Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest before reviewing. Conflicts do not automatically disqualify a reviewer but must be communicated transparently to the editor.

Review Process

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers are encouraged to evaluate the following aspects:

Title and Abstract:
Assess whether the title and abstract clearly and accurately reflect the content of the manuscript.

Introduction:
Evaluate the clarity of the research problem, context, and objectives. Determine whether the author effectively summarizes relevant literature, presents the research gap, and justifies the purpose and significance of the study.

Content and Originality:
Review the paper’s originality, depth, and contribution to the field. Check for plagiarism (the journal follows a maximum 25% similarity threshold). Consider whether the manuscript presents new insights or revisits previous studies with novel approaches and whether it aligns with the journal’s aims and scope.

Methodology:
Assess whether the author clearly describes the research design, data collection, and analytical methods. Verify that the methods are appropriate and sufficiently detailed to ensure reproducibility. Determine whether the tools, sampling, and materials are well explained and the procedures are consistent with scientific standards.

Results:
Examine whether the results are presented clearly, logically, and supported by appropriate analysis. Ensure that statistical tools, if used, are relevant and correctly applied.

Discussion and Conclusion:
Evaluate whether the discussion is coherent and supported by evidence. Check if the author compares the findings with previous studies and explains the significance or implications of the results. The conclusion should be consistent with the research objectives and provide direction for further study.

Tables and Figures:
Ensure that all visual elements are clear, accurate, and effectively illustrate the data. They should support the text and be easily understood by readers.

Writing Style and Structure

Manuscripts should be written in clear and coherent English, easy to understand, and engaging to read. Authors are expected to critically review relevant literature, maintain focus on the research topic, and adhere to academic writing conventions.

Ethical and Confidentiality Considerations

All materials under review are confidential and must not be shared or discussed with others without the editor’s permission. Reviewers must not contact authors directly.

If plagiarism, data manipulation, or potential fraud is suspected, reviewers should immediately notify the editor with detailed information.

All review reports should be submitted by the due date. Reviewer comments should clearly indicate which remarks are intended for the editor and which can be shared with the author. Honest, constructive feedback is highly valued and will guide the editor in making a final publication decision.