Author Guidelines

Section Policies

Editorial, author, reviewer, and submission governance

Editorial Overview

Overview Workflow Documents Author Guidelines Reviewer Guidelines Editor Guidelines Checklist

Editorial

✔ Open for Editorial Board ☐ Indexed ☐ Peer Reviewed

Articles

✔ Open Submissions ✔ Indexed ✔ Peer Reviewed

Book Review

✔ Open Submissions ✔ Indexed ✔ Peer Reviewed

Author Guidelines Workflow of Senarai: Journal of Islamic Heritage and Civilization

Figure: Visual overview of the Author Guidelines and submission workflow

To ensure the highest academic standards and facilitate a seamless publication process, authors are expected to meticulously observe the structural parameters and policies detailed below. Please download and utilize the official documents provided prior to your submission.

Essential Documents	Word Format	PDF Format
Article Template	Download .docx	View PDF
Editorial Template	Download .docx	View PDF
Original Statement	Download .docx	View PDF

No	Guideline Component	Description
1	Manuscript Originality, Exclusivity, and Authorship Responsibility	All manuscripts submitted to *Senarai: Journal of Islamic Heritage and Civilization* must constitute original scholarly work produced by the listed author(s). Submissions must not have been previously published in any form, whether in print or electronic media, and must not be under consideration or review by any other journal, publisher, conference proceeding, or academic outlet at the time of submission. By submitting a manuscript, the author(s) formally declare that the work is exclusive to *Senarai* for the duration of the editorial and peer-review process. Any form of simultaneous submission, duplicate publication, self-plagiarism, or unethical reuse of previously published material is considered a serious breach of academic integrity. To ensure transparency and ethical compliance, authors are required to submit a signed Statement of Originality and Ethical Compliance. This document must explicitly confirm that the manuscript contains no plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other unethical research and publication practices. The statement must be signed by the Corresponding Author on behalf of all contributing authors and uploaded as a supplementary file during the online submission process.
2	Scope and Academic Focus	*Senarai* is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that publishes original research articles within the interdisciplinary domains of Social and Islamic Studies. The journal particularly encourages critical, historical, textual, conceptual, and empirical studies related to Islamic heritage, civilization, intellectual traditions, and their interaction with social, cultural, political, and contemporary realities. Submitted manuscripts must demonstrate clear relevance to the journal’s scope, strong theoretical engagement with existing scholarship, methodological clarity and rigor, and a meaningful contribution to ongoing academic debates. Manuscripts falling outside the stated scope or lacking scholarly depth may be declined at the initial editorial screening stage.
3	Language Policy, Formatting, and Manuscript Length	Manuscripts may be written in English, Arabic, or Indonesian. Authors submitting manuscripts in Arabic or Indonesian must provide the Title, Abstract, and Keywords in English to ensure international accessibility, indexing, and wider dissemination. All manuscripts must be prepared on A4-sized paper, use single-line spacing, and strictly follow the formatting specifications provided in the official journal template. The total manuscript length must range between 7,000–9,000 words, inclusive of the main text, references, tables, figures, and appendices. Authors are required to use the official template available at: Download Template . Manuscripts that do not comply with formatting requirements may be subject to desk rejection.
4	Article Structure and Organization	Manuscripts must follow a clear and coherent academic structure consisting of: Title: Concise, specific, informative, and not exceeding 15 words. Abstract: 150–250 words in English summarizing background, objectives, methods, findings, and conclusions. Keywords: Three to five relevant keywords in English. Introduction: A comprehensive introduction (approximately 4–5 paragraphs or about 1000 words, without subsections) that establishes the broader academic context and background of the research, provides a critical review of relevant prior scholarship, clearly identifies the specific research gap(s) being addressed, states the research hypothesis (if applicable), and outlines the methodological framework employed. Methodology (optional): A separate Methodology section is optional. Authors may include a distinct Methodology section only when the research design, data collection procedures, analytical framework, or methodological justification require extended explanation that cannot be adequately accommodated within the Introduction section. Literature Review (optional): A standalone Literature Review section should be provided only if the theoretical discussion or scholarly mapping cannot be sufficiently integrated into the Introduction. Body of Article: A detailed and critical analysis and interpretation of the research findings, presented in a structured manner using subchapters. Conclusion: A succinct summary of the major findings and their broader implications. Bibliography: A complete and accurately formatted list of all sources cited within the manuscript.
5	Typography and Proper Naming Conventions	Authors are requested to use Book Type font for the entire manuscript. Special attention should be paid to the spelling of proper names of people should be written as the original. Indonesian names like Soeharto should be written so even though EYD (Ejaan Yang Disempurnakan) rules demand Suharto. However, place names must follow the latest spelling settings. In Bahasa Indonesia, Jambi should be used instead of Djambi or Surabaya instead of Soerabaja. Non-Indonesian words in Bahasa Indonesia article and non-English words in English article must be italicized. At the first use in the article, non-Bahasa Indonesia and non-English words must be enclosed with their meanings.
6	Figures, Tables, Maps, and Visual Materials	If the manuscript includes figures, tables, or maps, these should be uploaded as separate electronic files, numbered consecutively, and explicitly referred to within the main text. The actual figures and tables should not be embedded directly within the manuscript file. Authors should clearly indicate the desired placement of each figure or table within the text. All visual elements must be submitted as high-resolution source files with appropriate captions and sources.
7	Reference Style and Citation Management	The journal strictly applies APA Style. Authors are strongly encouraged to use reference management software such as Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote. Manually formatted references are discouraged. Information in the bracket includes the family name of the author, year of publication and the page. Example: (Kuntowijoyo 2005, 102) and (Allen & Donnithorne 1962, 222-3). For reference from printed media or periodical references, the citation format in bodynote is as follow: (Kompas 1978, 2) and (Staatsblad van Nederlandsch Indië 1948, 3). Use a semicolon (;) instead of a comma (,) when the note refers to more than one reference, as follows: (De Locomotief 1921; Tjahaja Timoer 1919). Archive must be placed in footnote as follow: "Opgaaf der bevolking der Moluksche eilanden 1840." National Archief (NA), Den Haag, Ministrie van Kolonialien, inv.nr. 3089. "Joint Communique of Prime Ministers of Burma, Ceylon, India, Indonesia and Pakistan." National Archives of the Republic of Indonesia (ANRI), Jakarta, Archive of Inventory L.N. Palar 1928-1981, No. 289. Please use abbreviation such as NA, ANRI and ISSH for the later footnotes if the passage referred the same institution. Article from electronic media is written as follow: Example: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/12/29/terror-tops-indonesias-security-agenda.html (accessed 10-12-2016). Reference Reference contains all sources that have been referred throughout the article and is organized by category and alphabetical. Example: Unpublished Archives National Archief, Den Haag, The Netherlands Ministrie van Kolonialen Commisariaat voor Indische Zaken Arsip Nasional Republik Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia L.N. Palar 1928-1981 Kabinet Presiden 1950-1959 Magazines and Newspapers De Locomotief. 1921. “Vulcanologie en Vulkaanbewaking.” October 21. Tjahaja Timoer. 1919. “Goenoeng Kloet Meletoes Lagi.” May 21. Journal Article Nordholt, Henk Schulte. 2011. “Indonesia in the 1950s. Nation, Modernity, and the Post-colonial State.” Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 167 (4): 386-404. Thee Kian Wie. 2005. “Indonesia’s First Affirmative Policy. The ‘Benteng’ Program in the 1950s’, Lembaran Sejarah 8 (2): 33-45. Book Sartono Kartodirdjo. 1973. Protest Movement in Rural Java. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Lindsay, Jennifer and Maya H.T. Liem, eds. 2011. Menjadi Ahli Waris Budaya Dunia. Jakarta & Denpasar: KITLV & Pustaka Larasan. Book Chapter Foulcher, Keith. 2011. “Membawa Pulang Dunia. Lalu Lintas Budaya dalam ‘Konfrontasi’ 1954-1960.” In Menjadi Ahli Waris Budaya Dunia, edited by Jennifer Lindsay and Maya H.T. Liem. Jakarta & Denpasar: KITLV & Pustaka Larasan. Disertation and Thesis Dewi Yuliati. 2005. “Dinamika Pergerakan Buruh di Semarang, 1908-1926.” Dissertation, Universitas Gadjah Mada.
8	Online Submission and Submission Procedure	Manuscripts must be submitted in .doc or .docx format via the journal’s Online Submission System. The submission process includes: Start → Upload Submission → Enter Metadata → Upload Supplementary Files → Confirmation. Submissions via email will not be processed.

Reviewers serve as the vital cornerstone of our academic integrity. We cordially request all appointed reviewers to uphold these structured evaluation parameters to maintain the distinction of the journal.

No	Guideline Component	Description
1	Role and Responsibility of Reviewers	Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of *Senarai*. They are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, critically, and constructively, providing scholarly feedback that assists authors in improving the clarity, rigor, and contribution of their work. Reviewers must assess the manuscript solely on its academic merit, originality, relevance, and methodological soundness.
2	Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct	All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, distribute, or use any part of the manuscript for personal, professional, or academic advantage. The content may not be disclosed to third parties without explicit permission from the Editor-in-Chief. Any breach of confidentiality constitutes a serious ethical violation.
3	Conflict of Interest	Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. Conflicts may arise from personal, institutional, collaborative, or financial relationships with the author(s). If a conflict exists, reviewers are required to decline the invitation to review to preserve the integrity and impartiality of the peer-review process.
4	Scholarly Evaluation Criteria	Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria: Originality and contribution to the field Relevance to the journal’s scope Clarity of research objectives and questions Theoretical framework and engagement with relevant literature Methodological rigor and appropriateness Quality of analysis, argumentation, and interpretation Clarity of structure, language, and presentation
5	Constructive and Respectful Feedback	Reviewer comments should be clear, specific, and constructive. Criticism must be expressed in a respectful and professional manner, focusing on improving the manuscript rather than judging the author. Reviewers should avoid personal remarks, discriminatory language, or dismissive statements.
6	Timeliness of Review	Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the agreed review period. If circumstances prevent timely completion, reviewers should promptly inform the editorial office so that alternative arrangements can be made.
7	Recommendation and Decision Support	Reviewers are required to provide a clear recommendation, such as: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Recommendations should be supported by well-reasoned arguments and aligned with the detailed review comments submitted to both the editor and the author.

Through clear editorial governance, Senarai: Journal of Islamic Heritage and Civilization maintains a disciplined, transparent, and accountable publication process. Editorial responsibilities are arranged in a layered workflow that moves from technical intake, to scholarly screening, to independent peer review, and then to final editorial decision-making. This structure ensures that every manuscript is handled with care, consistency, confidentiality, and scholarly responsibility.

The responsibilities below are designed to ensure that editorial actions remain consistent, evidence-based, and respectful of authors, reviewers, and readers. Particular attention is given to source integrity, interpretive clarity, citation quality, confidentiality, and responsible handling of culturally or religiously sensitive materials.

No	Role	Responsibilities and Editorial Scope
1	Editor-in-Chief	The Editor-in-Chief holds final editorial authority and is responsible for the journal’s overall direction, publication standards, and ethical oversight. This role ensures that the journal applies its policies consistently and maintains a high level of editorial integrity. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, resubmission, or rejection after considering the scholarly screening conducted by the Editor and the reports provided by the Reviewers. The role also includes oversight of publication ethics, authorship integrity, conflict-of-interest management, post-publication corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions when needed. The Editor-in-Chief safeguards editorial independence and ensures that all final decisions remain fair, documented, and aligned with the journal’s policies.
2	Managing Editor	The Managing Editor serves as the principal coordinator of the editorial workflow and ensures that each manuscript moves through the system in an orderly, timely, and documented manner. Working under the authority of the Editor-in-Chief, the Managing Editor oversees submission intake, administrative routing, revision tracking, production readiness, and communication flow among authors, editors, reviewers, and administrative staff. The Managing Editor verifies that the manuscript package is complete from an operational perspective, that the required files are in the correct format, and that the submission is ready to enter editorial screening. The Managing Editor also monitors deadlines, maintains the handoff between workflow stages, ensures that editorial correspondence remains precise and professional, and prepares workflow summaries for the Editor-in-Chief.
3	Editor	The Editor is responsible for scholarly screening and peer review management under the authority of the Editor-in-Chief and in close coordination with the Managing Editor. This includes assessing whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, evaluating the originality and scholarly relevance of the submission, checking the quality of argumentation, and determining whether the paper is suitable for external review. The Editor also coordinates the selection of at least two independent Reviewers, ensures that reviewer invitations are sent to qualified experts without conflicts of interest, and manages the review process through to completion. After receiving reviewer reports, the Editor synthesizes the feedback and prepares a clear editorial recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor does not make the final decision. The role is to provide scholarly judgment, ensure a fair and double-blind review process, and deliver constructive revision guidance to authors.
4	Reviewer	Reviewers provide independent, expert, and confidential assessment of manuscripts assigned to them. Their responsibility is to evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodological soundness, interpretive clarity, reliability of sources, scholarly contribution, and adherence to the journal’s academic focus. Reviewers are expected to deliver objective, evidence-based, and constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work. Reviewers must avoid personal criticism, biased judgment, or any use of the manuscript for personal, institutional, or commercial advantage. Reviewers do not communicate directly with authors, do not make editorial decisions, and do not access author identities in the double-blind process. Their role is strictly advisory and scholarly.
5	Administrative Staff	Administrative Staff support the technical and documentary side of the editorial process. Their responsibilities include receiving submissions, checking file completeness, confirming metadata accuracy, maintaining correspondence records, preparing publication documents, assisting with issue scheduling, handling archiving tasks, and supporting website updates. This role does not make editorial decisions but ensures that the journal workflow remains orderly, efficient, and traceable. Administrative Staff must handle article files, issue records, DOI information, publication dates, web links, and archival materials carefully so that content remains discoverable and accessible over time. They also assist with formal communication, invoice preparation where applicable, production records, and post-publication metadata corrections. Confidentiality, accuracy, and professionalism are essential in all administrative work.
6	Editorial Screening Principles	All manuscripts undergo editorial screening before external review. Screening is performed by the Editor and focuses on relevance to the journal scope, originality, clarity of argument, integrity of sources, technical completeness, and ethical suitability. Submissions that clearly fall outside the journal’s publication focus, contain serious ethical concerns, or do not meet basic scholarly standards may be declined at this stage. Screening also assesses whether the manuscript treats evidence responsibly, avoids unsupported claims, respects cultural and religious sensitivity, and offers a meaningful scholarly contribution. This stage protects the integrity of the review process and ensures that only suitable manuscripts are sent for expert evaluation.
7	Editorial Confidentiality	The Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Editor, Reviewers, and Administrative Staff must preserve confidentiality throughout the editorial process. Submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities, review reports, correspondence, and internal decisions may not be disclosed to unauthorized individuals. Confidential information may only be shared when necessary for the editorial workflow and only with persons directly involved in manuscript handling. Confidentiality protects author rights, reviewer independence, and the trust placed in the journal. It also applies to unpublished materials, internal decisions, and all documents exchanged during manuscript handling and production.
8	Editorial Ethics and Integrity	The editorial team must uphold publication ethics in every stage of the editorial process. This includes fair treatment of authors, impartial handling of manuscripts, responsible communication, clear disclosure of conflicts of interest, and proper management of concerns involving plagiarism, fabricated references, misleading citations, duplicate publication, or inappropriate use of AI tools. When ethical concerns arise, the Editor-in-Chief, supported by the Managing Editor and Editor, should act promptly, document the case carefully, and follow the journal’s ethical and malpractice procedures. Decisions must remain evidence-based and consistent with journal policy, with corrections, clarifications, expressions of concern, or retractions issued when required to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.
9	Editorial Decision-Making	After the review process is completed, the Editor prepares a recommendation based on reviewer reports and the scholarly quality of the manuscript. The recommendation is then forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief, who holds the final authority to issue the editorial decision. The Managing Editor communicates the decision to the author and ensures that the process is documented properly. Decisions are categorized into: Accepted as is, Accepted with Minor Revisions, Accepted with Major Revisions, Resubmit for Review, and Rejected. The final decision is always based on scholarly merit, ethical compliance, and alignment with journal scope.
10	Post-Decision Workflow	Following the final editorial decision, the manuscript proceeds into one of the designated pathways below: revision, rejection, or acceptance. For revision decisions, the author must submit a revised manuscript together with a response document that addresses reviewer and editor comments point by point. The Editor verifies whether the concerns have been adequately resolved and may, when necessary, return major revisions to the original Reviewers for a second round of evaluation. If the manuscript is rejected, the workflow concludes and the Managing Editor informs the author of the outcome. If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to production coordination and publication handling in accordance with the journal’s production workflow.

Submission Preparation Checklist: As part of the submission process, authors are required to verify their submission's compliance with all of the following items. Submissions that do not adhere to these guidelines may be returned to authors.

Check	Requirement	Verification Details
☐	Originality & Exclusivity	The submission has not been previously published, nor is it currently under consideration or review by another journal or conference.
☐	File Format & Template	The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word (.doc, .docx), or RTF document file format and strictly follows the official journal template.
☐	Word Count & Language	The total manuscript length is between 7,000–9,000 words. If written in Arabic or Indonesian, the Title, Abstract (150-250 words), and Keywords have been provided in English.
☐	Reference Style	The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines (APA Style), and reference management software (Mendeley, Zotero, etc.) has been used.
☐	Ethical Compliance	The signed Statement of Originality and Ethical Compliance is ready to be uploaded as a supplementary file during the submission process.
☐	Figures & Tables	All illustrations, figures, and tables are placed appropriately within the text (or indicated clearly) and are submitted as high-resolution files if required.