Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Integratio: Journal of Islamic Philosophy and Thought is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every manuscript submitted to Integratio: Journal of Islamic Philosophy and Thought undergoes a rigorous peer review process to ensure academic quality, originality, relevance, and contribution to the field of Islamic Philosophy and Thought. The peer review process involves the evaluation of manuscripts by two or more experts with scholarly competence relevant to the subject matter. This process is conducted to maintain high academic standards and to ensure the credibility of published articles.

The peer review process in Integratio: Journal of Islamic Philosophy and Thought consists of the following stages

1. Submission of Manuscript

The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the online submission system supported by the Open Journal Systems (OJS). Submissions must comply with the journal’s focus, scope, and author guidelines.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, the manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial office to determine its suitability for the focus and scope of Integratio: Journal of Islamic Philosophy and Thought, as well as its compliance with the author guidelines, including structure, formatting, and completeness of required sections. At this stage, the manuscript is also assessed for its basic academic quality and potential methodological issues. Manuscripts that pass this screening will undergo a similarity check using plagiarism detection software (Turnitin).

3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript to assess its originality, academic significance, and relevance to the journal. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without further review.

4. Reviewer Invitation

The handling editor invites qualified reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area and have no conflict of interest. Integratio: Journal of Islamic Philosophy and Thought applies a double-blind review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Manuscripts are sent to reviewers anonymously.

5. Reviewer Response

Invited reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers may accept or decline the invitation. If declining, reviewers may suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

6. Review Process

Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript, focusing on originality, methodology, theoretical framework, data analysis, discussion, and contribution to the field. Based on their assessment, reviewers provide recommendations to:

  • accept the manuscript,
  • accept with minor revisions,
  • accept with major revisions, or
  • reject the manuscript.

7. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all reviewer reports before making a final decision. In cases of significantly differing reviewer opinions, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further evaluation.

8. Decision Notification

The editorial decision, along with anonymous reviewer comments, is communicated to the corresponding author. Authors are required to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ and editors’ recommendations, where applicable

9. Final Processing and Publication

Revised manuscripts are resubmitted and may undergo further evaluation if necessary. Once the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading stages. Accepted articles are published online and made freely available in open-access PDF format.