Peer Review Process

Al Vadaukas: Journal of Education and Islamic Studies is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every manuscript submitted to this journal must undergo a peer-review process. Peer review refers to the evaluation of scientific work by two or more experts in the same field as the author. The objective is to determine the manuscript’s eligibility for publication. This process helps maintain quality standards and credibility of scholarly work. The peer-review process at Al Vadaukas follows nine steps as described below:

1. Submission of Manuscript

The author submits the manuscript through the online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS).

2. Editorial Assessment

Submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editor of Al Vadaukas: Journal of Education and Islamic Studies. The editor checks whether the manuscript aligns with the focus and scope of the journal. The format and layout of the manuscript are also reviewed against the journal’s Author Guidelines, ensuring the inclusion of necessary sections and appropriate academic language. The editor begins assessing the overall quality and identifying major methodological flaws, if any. At this stage, the manuscript is also checked for plagiarism using Turnitin/iThenticate to determine the similarity index.

3. Editor-in-Chief Review

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the manuscript is suitable for the journal, original, interesting, and significant enough to be published. If it fails to meet these criteria, the manuscript may be rejected without peer review.

4. Reviewer Invitation

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals deemed appropriate to review the manuscript, based on their expertise, research interests, and absence of conflicts of interest. Peer review in Al Vadaukas involves competent scholars in the field of Islamic Education, maintaining impartiality through the double-blind review system—reviewers do not know the authors' identities, and authors do not know the reviewers'.

5. Response to Invitation

Invited reviewers consider whether the manuscript aligns with their expertise, whether any conflict of interest exists, and whether they have the time to complete the review. Reviewers may accept or decline the invitation, and if declining, they are encouraged to suggest alternative reviewers.

6. Review Process

Reviewers dedicate time to read the manuscript thoroughly, often more than once. An initial reading forms a general impression; if significant flaws are found, the reviewer may recommend rejection immediately. Otherwise, reviewers will take detailed notes and submit a point-by-point review. The review includes a recommendation: accept, revise (major or minor), or reject.

7. Evaluation of Reviews

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor review all returned evaluations before making a final decision. If the two reviewers’ comments differ significantly, a third reviewer may be invited for further assessment.

8. Communication of Decision

The editor sends a decision letter to the author, including anonymous reviewer comments. Authors are expected to respond accordingly. Reviewers also receive notification of the editorial decision and outcome of their review.

9. Final Steps

If accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the copyediting stage.
If revisions are required (major or minor), the editor includes constructive reviewer feedback to guide the author in improving the manuscript. Authors must revise and resubmit their work based on the reviewers’ suggestions.

Once the revised manuscript is submitted, it will either be:

  • Sent back to the same reviewers for re-evaluation (in most major revision cases), or

  • Reviewed by the editor only, if changes are minor.

If the editor is satisfied with the revisions, the manuscript is formally accepted for publication. The final version will be published online and made freely available as a downloadable PDF file.